Customers’ Intentions to Switch to Internet-Only Banks: Perspective of the Push-Pull-Mooring Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper "Customers' Intentions to Switch to Internet-only Banks: Perspective of the Push-Pull-Mooring Model" analyses the interesting issue of why users switch from traditional banks to Internet-only banks.

However, some recommendations for improvement are suggested:

It is recommended to review Table 1, as it indicates that "Table 1 shows previous studies on switching services or technologies based on the PPM model." But only Zhou (2016) appears in the version that has been sent for review.

In general, it is recommended to indicate at the outset (Abstarct or Introduction) that the study is only for Korea, and that the internet bank being analysed, or asked about, is a specific one, Kakao Bank.

It is recommended that the identity of the sample be clarified. It says on line 359-361 "the respondents for data collection were randomly selected from university students and the public on campuses and on the streets. A total of 275 questionnaires were collected and used for empirical analysis" but does not specify in which cities, campuses... country, the date on which the sample was taken. Also, as mentioned above, it should be clarified that a specific bank is asked about Kakao Bank.

It should be made clear that 30 questions have been asked, according to Likert scale, for example "All items incorporated in the research questionnaire were measured using a five-point Likert scales, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)" or as appropriate.

If possible, it is recommended to include the Descriptive statistics table for the most significant questions. It would also be interesting to assess whether there is a correlation between the variables age, gender when adopting internet banking, otherwise this could be put as a limitation.

With regard to the limitations, it should be noted that the difference in adoption by country may not only be affected by technological development variables but also by other variables such as cultural ones.

It is also recommended to cite more current, directly or indirectly related work such as

Beza Muche Teka | (2020) Factors affecting bank customers usage of electronic banking in Ethiopia: Application of structural equation modeling (SEM), Cogent Economics & Finance, 8:1, 1762285, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2020.1762285

Höhnke N, Homölle S. Impact investments, evil investments, and something in between: Comparing social banks' investment criteria and strategies with depositors' investment preferences. Business Ethics: Env & Resp. 2021;30:287–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12342

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Main comments

1. In the abstract of the paper, it is not clear whether your contribution consists in giving to other subsequent works a new estimation model or a theoretical framework (link between the variables). In my opinion, the contribution should be better clarified. Furthermore, it is not clear to me why the internet-only banks industry should be "revitalized": this verb is also used later in the paper (e.g., line 60), but the reason is not understood considering the current expansion dynamics of the fintech sector.
2. In lines 71-72 you state that the difference in terms of services between internet-only banks and internet banking is narrowing; I would add that today several traditional banks are starting to offer customers services through the internet-only banks they have created. These aspects should be the object of further investigation on your part, as they are central to the research project. Similarly (and precisely because of the gradual approximation of business models), I do not find what is stated in lines 79-81 correct/true.
3. The entire paragraph from line 93 to line 112 is not effective; if you want to keep it as text, it would be necessary to better explain the specificities of the variables and the reason why they are linked to a certain estimation model. In my opinion it would be more effective to bring everything back into a table, as we did later in Table 1. Furthermore, the paragraph should be interrupted at line 108, since the following text is linked to lines 113-123 which, moreover, are affected by the same ineffective lexical setting (with some incorrect concordances such as "variables" and "variable" referring to environmental factors.
4. Since the choice and structure of variables are central factors in understanding the quality of work, section 3.1 needs to be carefully reviewed and supplemented. It is not clear how the variables were derived, as (not enough) explained in lines 158-163. They look like simple lists of variables put together in a row (probably, the typo of line 164 derives from this). It is necessary to better explain the way in which the variables have been constructed, with reference for example to the type of Likert scale used and to the way in which the scores of the questions belonging to the same set are aggregated (averages, summations, ...). This can be done in the following sections (e.g., line 377), if you prefer. Still regarding this section, it should be explained why some variables have both a direct effect on the intention to switch and on the mediation variables while other variables have only one of these two effects.
5. I understand the examples related to Korea in the text (it is the target market you are studying); however, while the case of KakaoTalk services (lines 303-310) may appear appropriate, the direct reference of line 275 should be modified and generalized to other areas of the world (or alternatively referred to the features of the sample).
6. The hypothesis introduced in lines 329-332 is very strong; on the contrary, the next sentence is not clear (lines 332-335). In the proposed form, the cost of continuity looks like a push / pull factor: explain better this section. All this is also linked to the discussion of the results and the implications of policy (lines 275-278): from a competitive point of view, much more can be said with reference to the issue of switching costs, on which I expect a broader and more profound discussion.
7. One of the main aspects of the work is the proposal of an alternative method to those usually used in the literature for the analysis of the phenomenon object of the paper: it should therefore be explained in greater detail what real advantages derive from this methodological choice. This applies to both the introductory section and the quick passage with which the whole matter is hastily liquidated (lines 484-485).
8. Paragraph 6, which should represent the most impactful section of the paper, is poorly structured: it essentially repeats what was previously stated without offering real points for discussion. Given that the large number of hypotheses makes the analysis complex, particular attention must be paid to clarity in this section of the paper: in particular, I expect a general picture of the profile of the factors of attraction or resistance to change in the type of bank to emerge, without limit yourself to a long list of variables with a few hints of comment next to them.
9. The paper completely lacks a reference to the theme of sustainability. Since this element is central to the Journal's “aims and scope”, the paper needs to take it into account both in the introductory section and in the policy implications.
10. I am very doubtful about the implications for practitioners mentioned in lines 501-504; I wonder instead if the topic does not belong to aspects linked to the age of the population (therefore linked to familiarity with new technologies).
11. In the paper there are numerous typos and lexical choices (below you will find some examples, relating to particularly obvious errors) that must be corrected. I recommend carrying out a professional proofreading activity on the draft submitted.

Minor issues

1. There is an error in the concordance between Ravenstein (1889) and the subsequent indication ("in the 1980s").
2. There is something wrong with the first column of Table 1.
3. Some abbreviations are used in the work, which are sometimes used on a couple of occasions (e.g., SNS). Perhaps it would be more useful to use that strategy with reference to internet-only banks, which represent a form used dozens of times in the paper.
4. “M-banking” in line 218 (and following) represents a form of abbreviation not previously introduced.
5. There is a typo in line 420 (you reject H6 and not H5).
6. The section dedicated to references must be carefully corrected. Bibliographic notes for Alwan (2016) are missing; Bansal et al. (2005) is repeated twice; references numbers 5, 7, 10, 16, 25, 31, 33, 35, 42, 54 and 61 do not appear in the text.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. In the introduction, additional explanations about the necessity of this study and its differentiation from previous studies are required.
2. Since there is a question as to whether this paper is suitable for a Sustainability journal, content related to sustainability is required.
3. In this study, the PPM model was used, and the rationale for using this model is judged to be insufficient.
4. In Table 1, why only Zhou (2016) is mentioned while explaining the PPM model, and other previous studies are also needed. 
5. In Figures 1 and 2, "Low System Quality" is mentioned twice and needs confirmation. 
6. In conclusion, explanation of theoretical and practical implications is insufficient.
7. There are not many recent papers in 2020 and 2021 in the reference.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

You declare that a complete proofreading has been performed; I suggest you to make another round to fix existing typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the introduction, it is necessary to express how the results of this study can be linked to sustainability for research purposes.

Although based on the results of testing 14 hypotheses,  contributions and implications were provided, I felt that they were simply presented as a causal explanation. Consumers' expansion of financial services from traditional banks to internet-only banks does not mean a simple change in the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to present the implications of a more in-depth study. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf