Continuance Usage Intention toward E-Payment during the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Financial Sustainable Development Perspective Using Perceived Usefulness and Electronic Word of Mouth as Mediators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My views on this are:

 

The basic idea of the article is good BUT:

 

1.Please correctly edit the format of references sections.

 

 

2.According to the perceived usefulness of the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the perceived seriousness of the health belief model (HBM), this study developed and explored the theoretical framework of consumers' continuance usage intention toward e-payment. 

But，Core variables of TAM include perceived ease of use in addition to perceived usefulness. Additionally, there have been many literatures proving the importance of perceived ease of use in the field of mobile payment. I would like to ask the author explain why the perceived ease of use is eliminated.

 

3.I assume that in Table 3, you present a Fornell-Larcker criterion for SEM? I would recommend including discriminant validity analysis based on the HTMT method which has been shown to be far superior to other methods for testing discriminant validity.

 

4.At the begging (introduction) and at the end (Conclusion) you should include a description of the research questions. You should develop and explain your goals.“Conclusions” this is the most important chapter, there you can find the results, your view your opinion and links between your results and real world. So, the conclusion section should be a summary of article’s aim, methods, and findings. It is not here.

 

5.In my opinion the academic implications section should be devoted to reflecting the true contributions of the paper with respect to theoretical. The discussion sections should present the results obtained by your study in relation with the findings of previous studies from the literature.

And your results are in line with the findings of other studies? or not? if you have obtained differences, explain why？

 

 

6.Significant influence of perceived usefulness and security on individual behavioral intention has been proved by literatures concerning e-payment. But I also notice that the influence of perceived usefulness and security on continuance usage intention is not significant in this research. Could you please explain why?

 

Author Response

JUN.18, 2022

Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen Editor-in-Chief

Thank you for your handling our paper and providing us the opportunity to revise the paper. We also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the helpful and valuable comments that make the article more readable and faultless. We have followed the instructions of the reviewer and made the appropriate changes accordingly and also added more recent literatures and practical information to update the manuscript.

 In submitting, we provide a clean version in which a number of changes have been made, as well as a marked highlight version in which we have marked the major revisions. Meanwhile, the point-by-point concerns of the reviewer’s queries are discussed as follows (revisions marked with red color mean addition and delete with strikethrough). We hope that our revised paper can meet the journal’s and reviewer’s requirements.

This manuscript has been proofread by Michael Sperr, who is a native English speaker, prior to submission, with English amendments attached for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript needs major revisions and clarifications considering that:

1) it is poorly motivated. Its aim/objective and possible novelty/contribution are not clearly presented.

2) There is a large number of references, but most of them are historical ones. Considering the subject, it would be expected less old references and more recent references on the subject.

3) The link between theoretical explanation, hypotheses development, and model testing is not clear. There is a missing stronger link between the theoretical-conceptual model and empirical testing.

4) The sample and sampling procedure are missing. It should be more clearly explained the survey process and data collection.

5) It is not clear where a certain hypothesis was tested and what is its finding.

6) There is missing more discussion and comparison of the results.

7) What can be the study limitations?

8) Some manuscript polishing is recommended.

Author Response

JUN.18, 2022

Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen Editor-in-Chief

Thank you for your handling our paper and providing us the opportunity to revise the paper. We also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the helpful and valuable comments that make the article more readable and faultless. We have followed the instructions of the reviewer and made the appropriate changes accordingly and also added more recent literatures and practical information to update the manuscript.

 In submitting, we provide a clean version in which a number of changes have been made, as well as a marked highlight version in which we have marked the major revisions. Meanwhile, the point-by-point concerns of the reviewer’s queries are discussed as follows (revisions marked with red color mean addition and delete with strikethrough). We hope that our revised paper can meet the journal’s and reviewer’s requirements.

This manuscript has been proofread by Michael Sperr, who is a native English speaker, prior to submission, with English amendments attached for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

JUN.18, 2022

Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen Editor-in-Chief

Thank you for your handling our paper and providing us the opportunity to revise the paper. We also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the helpful and valuable comments that make the article more readable and faultless. We have followed the instructions of the reviewer and made the appropriate changes accordingly and also added more recent literatures and practical information to update the manuscript.

 In submitting, we provide a clean version in which a number of changes have been made, as well as a marked highlight version in which we have marked the major revisions. Meanwhile, the point-by-point concerns of the reviewer’s queries are discussed as follows (revisions marked with red color mean addition and delete with strikethrough). We hope that our revised paper can meet the journal’s and reviewer’s requirements.

This manuscript has been proofread by Michael Sperr, who is a native English speaker, prior to submission, with English amendments attached for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your improvements. Overall the article is in good form and suitable for publication after thorough proofreading.

Reviewer 2 Report

It has been revised and improved. Final polishing can be done during the publication process.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your work; in my belief the manuscript has improved a lot by content and writing style. However, my main concerns about the representativeness of the sample and the lack of added value in methodology  remain.