Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies for Business Transactions: The Case of North Carolina
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the interesting work in this trending topic. The text uses Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), using robust data analysis. The study is novel in that it has a regional focus giving new insights into cryptocurrency adoption at a regional level.
However, the paper has the following flaws;
- It has a narrow generalizability (focuses only on North Carolina).
- The sample size (228 valid responses) might not be fully representative of North Carolina's diverse population.
- The exclusion criteria for participants (e.g., prior knowledge of cryptocurrencies) may introduce bias
With regard to hypothesis results;
- The finding that ownership negatively impacts the intention to use cryptocurrencies is interesting but lacks depth in its analysis and implications.
The practical recommendations, are too generic.
- For instance, emphasizing social influence and perceived usefulness lacks specific strategies for regulators or platforms.
- Also the authors should provide actionable strategies for key stakeholders, including app developers, businesses, and policymakers, to address adoption barriers.
- Also the authors should analyze why certain factors did not significantly influence adoption intentions and explore potential implications.
- In addition the authors should investigate why cryptocurrency owners resist using them for transactions and propose targeted interventions.
All in all, the authors should explicitly discuss the sample size as a limitation in the discussion section and emphasize the exploratory nature of the study. Since the study has this nature, implications part should be enhanced to a great extend for the paper to be acceptable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the thorough review and comments. I found them insightful. The suggested changes improved the paper quite a lot.
I have attached my response in a PDF file, which responds to your comments and refers to the sections where the changes have been made in the paper. For your convenience, I have also Highlighted the changes in the paper.
Thank you again for your time.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The article lacks a clear section outlining the organizational structure of the paper. It is recommended to include a section like “The organization of this paper is as follows” to help readers understand the flow and framework of the content.
2. The literature review on Perceived Usefulness is discussed in both sections 2.3 and 2.7, leading to some redundancy. It is recommended to summarize these discussions appropriately.
3. The article focuses only on samples familiar with cryptocurrencies, excluding those who are unfamiliar. Similarly, it restricts its scope to North Carolina, excluding other states. This approach might affect the validity of the sample. Please clarify the rationale and purpose for this limitation.
4. The article presents a notable finding that ownership has a significant negative coefficient. Please elaborate on why ownership negatively impacts intention.
5. Figure 1 is not cited in the article. Please ensure that all figures included in the paper are appropriately referenced and discussed.
6. The table formatting is inconsistent. Tables 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 use the three-line style, while Tables 1 and 4 follow a different format.
7. The authors mentioned using the mean replacement method to handle missing data. Please clarify the rationale for this choice and consider adding a discussion on its impact on the results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the thorough review and comments. I found them insightful. The suggested changes improved the paper quite a lot.
I have attached my response in a PDF file, which responds to your comments and refers to the sections where the changes have been made in the paper. For your convenience, I have also Yello-highlighted the changes in the paper.
Thank you again for your time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntention to Use Cryptocurrencies for Business Transactions: The Case of North Carolina
This is an exciting paper. However there are issues that need to be addressed to improve the paper.
1. The abstract needs to be improved by including additional information, such as the number of research respondents and specifying the extensions of the TAM variables
2. This sentence needs to be improved “The surge in crypto prices after the 2024 US elections can be Khan et al. (2024) also discovered that there needed to be a legal framework to embrace cryptocurrencies.”
3. This sentence needs to be supported by data “Despite their global popularity, their adoption for routine transactions in the U.S., particularly in North Carolina, remains limited”
4. It is necessary to specify who extended the TAM (Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease-of-Use, Social Influence, Perceived Trust, Ownership, Financial Literacy, Transparency, Innovativeness, Perceived Risk) used as the basis for the framework in this study. If the extension was made by the authors themselves, the reasoning or considerations for each added variable should be explained
5. Please provide the structure of the article in the last paragraph of the introduction section
6. The sequence of hypothesis writing needs to be arranged, starting with the TAM variables (Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use), followed by other variables that extend the TAM
7. In the methodology, particularly in data collection using self-reported structured questionnaires, there is a potential risk of common method bias (CMB). It is advisable for the author to perform a CMB test. For reference, please see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330
8. The author also needs to specify the data collection period in the methodology section, including an explanation of the sampling method used
9. The description of the coefficient of determination (R²) needs to be explained, including the explanation of blindfolding (Q²) that validates the predictive relevance of the PLS path model
10. Please refer to Hair et al. (2019) for an explanation of this finding “The R-square value of 0.518 in Table 7 indicates that the model's independent variables can explain 51.8% of the variance in the dependent variable”
11. The discussion section needs to be further developed by discussing the findings in the context of respondents in North Carolina, including comparing the results with previous studies, both supporting and opposing
12. Complete the manuscript by adding sections on theoretical and practical implications, as well as limitations and suggestions for future research
13. The references need to be checked one by one, for example “Alaklabi, S., & Kang, K. (2022). THE EXTENDED TRA MODEL FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF FACTORS DRIVING INDIVIDUALS’BEHAVIORAL INTENTION-TO-USE CRYPTOCURRENCY. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management.”
Best of luck, and I hope this comment is helpful.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the thorough review and comments. I found them insightful. The suggested changes improved the paper quite a lot.
I have attached my response in a PDF file, which responds to your comments and refers to the sections where the changes have been made in the paper. For your convenience, I have also Highlighted the changes in the paper.
Thank you again for your time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntention to Use Cryptocurrencies for Business Transactions: The Case of North Carolina
Thank you for the feedback. Most of the comments have been addressed by the author; however, a few aspects still require improvement in this article. First, the Q² value should be explained to emphasize the predictive relevance of the research model. Finally, the common method bias (CMB) test must still be conducted. Good luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
I have addressed your Round 2 comments in the attached updated manuscript. I have also attached a Word file showing the changes and the sections where the changes were made. If you have additional questions, I would be happy to address them. Thank you again for your time.
Shakir
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
