Factors Determining Consumer Acceptance of NFC Mobile Payment: An Extended Mobile Technology Acceptance Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This research cannot be used for pluasible policy recommendations due to its sample size and sample selcetion method which I raised in my previous review.

 

Author Response

Respected reviewer, thanks for your valuable comment. We have considered your comments and related changes have incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

This research cannot be used for plausible policy recommendations due to its sample size and sample selection method which I raised in my previous review.

 

Response:

The study's sample size is determined based on the number of indicators while following the sampling technique of J. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2014). However, the stated study has recommended a minimum sample size of 5-8 times of total indicators, which approximately tends to fix the sample for this study around 165-264. Similarly, this study has targeted the nascent users of mobile payment in Pakistan, Since the findings of the study have been deduced based on the perception of nascent users of mobile payment regarding key drivers and barriers of mobile payment in Pakistan

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors may cite also other scientific papers. 

Author Response

Reviewer comment

The authors may cite also other scientific papers.

Response

Dear reviewer thanks you for your time on our manuscript. Your comments are helpful. We cited the most recent and related paper in the revised manuscript; hope you will find it well.

 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Thank you for re-submitting and answering my concerns.

You covered the most important aspects of my review. 

I believe we can go forward.

Just some minor points to change: 

- Some sentences have some style problems, or some words missing (e.g. 25/26; 27 - 29 or 512-13). Please make sure that another person thoroughly reads the text. This esp. concerns the new sections.

- Some citation problems: Line 109 still a first name L.-W. Wong in the citation, or line 535 AL... or 528 AlGassim, Arvidsson pages and Volume missing.

 

Author Response

Reviewer comments #1:

Some sentences have some style problems, or some words missing (e.g. 25/26; 27 - 29 or 512-13). Please make sure that another person thoroughly reads the text. This esp. concerns the new sections.

 

Response

Dear reviewer thanks you for your time on our manuscript. Your comments are helpful. We improved the revised manuscript; hope you will find it well.

Reviewer comments #2:

- Some citation problems: Line 109 still a first name L.-W. Wong in the citation, or line 535 AL... or 528 AlGassim, Arvidsson pages and Volume missing.

Response

Dear reviewer thanks you for your time. We have proofread the revised the references as per your valuable suggestion.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Accept as is

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is a solid study.

Some weak points that should be improved:

- Describe in detail how the study participants were recruited

- Comment on the representativeness of the sample (totally unclear). Here, include statistics about mobile payment use in Pakistan (how many users and non-users are there?)

- Include a table with mean/s.e. of the specific questions

- Comment more why constructs such as perceived risk / trust are omitted

- Expand explanations about SEM models / "the CMB problem". Sometimes abbreviations are not explained (CFA).

 

 

Some minor points:

- line 23: Becker 2007 is too old.

- l. 33: "visitors" ?

- Very often, the first names of the authors are included (e.g. S. Shin instead of Shin or C.-H. Wong instead of Wong), there are at least 4 variants of the first names of Mr. Hair and these should not be included in the main text anyway.

- Search for double spaces (I saw at least 3 instances).

- Aren't subtitles necessary for 3.X "Perceived enjoyment" or 3.X "TSE"?

- l. 243: Lutfi 2022 does not seem relevant.

- l. 377: unclear: "offered practititioneers ....")

- Table 6: different font sizes

- References: sometimes information missing: e.g. Bailey et al. (2017), no information about volume and pages (and more instances) => pls. check this carefully.

Author Response

Reviewer: 1

Some weak points that should be improved:

1. Describe in detail how the study participants were recruited

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for you time and impressive comments for further improvement of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we provided the justification in methodology part.

2. Comment on the representativeness of the sample (totally unclear). Here, include statistics about mobile payment use in Pakistan (how many users and non-users are there?)

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for your time and valuable comments on our manuscript. Dear reviewer as you suggested we enriched the introduction portion in the revised manuscript.

3. Comment more why constructs such as perceived risk / trust are omitted.

Response

As this study has targeted only the existing users of mobile payments. In practice, the m-payment users brazenly deny the associated risks and have assured the required level of trust. In contrast, the nascent users of m-payment suffer from higher level perceived risks and face difficulties in building trust in entering the stated zone. However, this study has incorporated such factors in its limitation sections and has recommended the future research to be conducted while focusing on existing and nascent users of m-payments. 

4.  Include a table with mean/s.e. of the specific questions

Response

Dear reviewer as you suggested we incorporated this table in the revised manuscript.

5.  Comment more why constructs such as perceived risk / trust are omitted

Response

Dear reviewer as you suggested we provided the justification in the revised manuscript.

6. Expand explanations about SEM models / "the CMB problem". Sometimes abbreviations are not explained (CFA).

Response

Dear reviewer we incorporated the needful in the revised manuscript.

Some minor points:

7. - line 23: Becker 2007 is too old

 

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for you time and impressive comments for further improvement of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we did the recommended change as you suggested.

8.   33: "visitors”?

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for you time and impressive comments for further improvement of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we corporate the changes as you suggested.

9. Very often, the first names of the authors are included (e.g. S. Shin instead of Shin or C.-H. Wong instead of Wong), there are at least 4 variants of the first names of Mr. Hair and these should not be included in the main text anyway

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for you time and impressive comments for further improvement of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we corporate the changes as you suggested.

10. Search for double spaces (I saw at least 3 instances).

Response

Dear reviewer we incorporated the needful in the revised manuscript.

11. Aren't subtitles necessary for 3.X "Perceived enjoyment" or 3.X "TSE"?

Response

Dear reviewer we incorporated the needful in the revised manuscript.

12. 243: Lutfi 2022 does not seem relevant

Response

Dear reviewer we incorporated the suggested comment in the revised manuscript.

13. - l. 377: unclear: "offered practitioners ....")

Response

Dear reviewer we incorporated the needful in the revised manuscript.

14. Table 6: different font sizes

Response

Dear reviewer we incorporated the needful in the revised manuscript.

15. References: sometimes information missing: e.g. Bailey et al. (2017), no information about volume and pages (and more instances) => pls. check this carefully.

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for you time and impressive comments for further improvement of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we corporate the changes as you suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Both the introduction and the literature review must be developed by using newer academic papers.

I found it difficult to see any connection to sustainability, the focus of the journal. Not even once sustainability is mentioned throughout the manuscript.

Research methodology is not connected with the previous parts of the paper.

The authors should present the structure of the questionnaire, the timeframe for questionnaire development, validation, data collection, return rate for questionnaires etc.

Some articles cited in the manuscripts are from 1970, like Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 1(3), 185-216. Please use more up to date and latest academic papers.

 

 

 

Author Response

 Reviewer: 2

1. Both the introduction and the literature review must be developed by using newer academic papers.

Response

Dear reviewer as you suggested we enriched the introduction and literature portion in the revised manuscript.

2. I found it difficult to see any connection to sustainability, the focus of the journal. Not even once sustainability is mentioned throughout the manuscript.

Response

Dear reviewer in the revised manuscript we did changes as per your suggestions.

3. Research methodology is not connected with the previous parts of the paper.

Response

Dear reviewer in the revised manuscript we updated the methodology.  

4. The authors should present the structure of the questionnaire, the timeframe for questionnaire development, validation, data collection, return rate for questionnaires etc

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for your time and valuable comments on our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we did a change according to your valuable suggestion.

5. Some articles cited in the manuscripts are from 1970, like Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 1(3), 185-216. Please use more up to date and latest academic papers.

Response

Dear reviewer as you suggested we enriched the Methodology portion in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

This research is based on a very small sample size and it is not clear how this sample was selected. Thus, it is difficult to produce policy recommendations for widespread situations.

This research should revise its reference use as the authors have poor referencing techniques. See examples below:

The following reference is too irrelevant for the current situation. The authors should uodate it with a new reference.

According to a Federal Re- 21 serve System report, electronic payments have for the first-time overtaken paper pay- 22 ments in terms of transaction volume (Becker, 2007).

The following  reference requires a page number:

MP is "the exchange of financial value 23 between two parties utilizing a mobile smartphone." (Becker, 2007)

The following statement does not require any reference at all. It is a well-known fact.

Smartphones are nowadays at the core of our daily lives (S. Shin & Lee, 2021).

The authors should avoid using secondary referencing. See for example: As cited in (Schunk, 1991), the self-efficacy theory developed by (Bandura, 1977, 1982) 121 suggests that people with a poor sense of self-efficacy in performing a job may shun tasks, 122 but those who think they can do their jobs perform well.

 

According to Markus (1987), the critical mass theory suggested by Oliver et al. (1985) 141 tries to forecast the efficiency of group action directed toward a common goal.

The authors should also avoid using multiple references, thus no more than 3 references in a sentence.

Author Response

Reviewer: 3

1. This research is based on a very small sample size and it is not clear how this sample was selected. Thus, it is difficult to produce policy recommendations for widespread situations.

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for you time and impressive comments for further improvement of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we provided the justification in methodology part.

2. This research should revise its reference use as the authors have poor referencing techniques. See examples below:
3. The following reference is too irrelevant for the current situation. The authors should update it with a new reference.
4. According to a Federal Re- 21 serve System report, electronic payments have for the first-time overtaken paper pay- 22 ments in terms of transaction volume (Becker, 2007).
5. The following reference requires a page number:
6. MP is "the exchange of financial value 23 between two parties utilizing a mobile smartphone." (Becker, 2007).

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for you time and impressive comments for further improvement of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we updated the manuscript with updated references.

7. The following statement does not require any reference at all. It is a well-known fact. Smartphones are nowadays at the core of our daily lives (S. Shin & Lee, 2021).

Response

Dear reviewer we incorporated the needful in the revised manuscript.

8. The authors should avoid using secondary referencing. See for example: As cited in (Schunk, 1991), the self-efficacy theory developed by (Bandura, 1977, 1982) 121 suggests that people with a poor sense of self-efficacy in performing a job may shun tasks, 122 but those who think they can do their jobs perform well.

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for your time and valuable comments on our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we did a change according to your valuable suggestion.

9. According to Markus (1987), the critical mass theory suggested by Oliver et al. (1985) 141 tries to forecast the efficiency of group action directed toward a common goal.

Response

Dear reviewer we incorporated the needful in the revised manuscript.

10. The authors should also avoid using multiple references, thus no more than 3 references in a sentence.

Response

Thank you, dear reviewer, for you time and impressive comments for further improvement of our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we corporate the changes as you suggested.