Exploring Consumers’ Discontinuance Intention of Remote Mobile Payments during Post-Adoption Usage: An Empirical Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read this paper with great interest.
The paper investigates "Exploring consumers’ discontinuance intention of remote mobile payments during post-adoption usage: An empirical study".
While the paper has some useful information, it doesn't contribute much to the existing body of knowledge. The paper represents a first contribution to this consideration, but there are gaps that limit the field of observation and the possible results.
The shortfalls that would have to be corrected or clarify in order to make it become a publishable paper.
It is recommended other suggestions seen to be necessary to improve the paper:
- Abstract is not structured conserning the purpose, methodology, findings and originality. Is very short.
- Literature coverage in terms of papers is not balanced.
- I suggest considering a general / integrative theoretical approach in order to present your research model, and then write your paper from the angle of the chosen one.
- This work seems not to provide a significant contribution to knowledge in the field.
- Especially Introduction part, the paper should better provide a critical analysis of the available and appropriate literature.
- Author/s should deeply and critically discuss the study findings.
- Since the study lack of clear implications, author/s should fully outline them of the conclusion paragraph.
- English proofreading is needed. The manuscript requires improvements in grammar and language editing prior to publication.
- The bibliography is not extensive and is not entirely mentioned correctly in the text.
Accordingly, it is opinion of this reviewer to accept with major revisions the proposed manuscript for a publication on this journal.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1:
- Abstract is not structured conserning (perhaps concerning) the purpose, methodology, findings and originality. Is very short.
Response: We have revised the abstract and developed a clearer and more structured abstract.
- Literature coverage in terms of papers is not balanced.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised and updated the literature section. In particular, we have developed sub-section 2.3 (previously 2.2) and sub-section in section 2.3.
- I suggest considering a general / integrative theoretical approach in order to present your research model, and then write your paper from the angle of the chosen one.
Response: Thank you very much for providing this critical point. In satisfying this suggestion, we have updated Section 2; in particular, we have included new Sub-section 2.2 and updated Sub-section 2.3 (previously 2.2). We have also added an introductory part to Section 3.
- This work seems not to provide a significant contribution to knowledge in the field.
Response: We appreciate this issue. Therefore, this study’s significant contributions to knowledge in the field have been outlined in the updated introduction section. In addition, we have highlighted and explain further the study contributions in Sub-sections 2.2 and 2.3, then we offer more elaboration on this issue in Section 7.
- Especially Introduction part, the paper should better provide a critical analysis of the available and appropriate literature.
Response: Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Now, we have added a critical analysis part of pertinent literature to the introduction section.
- Author/s should deeply and critically discuss the study findings.
Response: We have substantially revised and strengthened the discussion of our findings. All the new parts have been highlighted.
- Since the study lack of clear implications, author/s should fully outline them of the conclusion paragraph.
Response: We have revised section 7 to clearly outlines the key theoretical and practical implications of this study. Moreover, the conclusion section has been updated to re-emphasize these implications.
- English proofreading is needed. The manuscript requires improvements in grammar and language editing prior to publication.
Response: We apologize for this. We have proofread the paper.
- The bibliography is not extensive and is not entirely mentioned correctly in the text.
Response: We have revised and updated the reference list.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic and the article are very interesting. The paper addresses an important and currently discussed topic of customers’ intention of mobile payments which corresponds with the scope of the Administrative science journal. However, its content require major modification and enrichment.
- The purpose of the work and its significance should be deifined in the introduction section.
- The Introduction part should provide sufficient background, so I reccomend to present the results of previous studies concerning the consumers’ discontinuance intention of m-payment. In this section the authors only mention that “there is a dearth of research on IS discontinuous usage including m-payments”, but they do not discuss the results of previous research (line 59-62).
- The research design needs further description. The authors should explain the research model presented in Figure 1. Why did you remove “user satisfaction” dimension from the model of IS, which was previously included in IS Success Model by DeLone & McLean. At the same time, the authors mention in the text clients’ satisfaction with the system quality/information quality, which is not included in the model (line 194-200). Moreover, each dimension should be described more detailed citing previous research. Based on the literature review, the authors should explain how they understand the term “system quality”, “service quality”, “information quality”.
- The research design needs further description: why the authors did not examine if ‘frequency of use’ effect the ‘intention of use’?
- The authors should explain the timeliness of research as they were done in 2017. In the context of constant improvement of information technologies, but also increasing popularity of m-payment among clients (especially while the rapid growth of e-commerce during pandemic), the m-payment service has been developing and improving year by year. Therefore, the time span of 4 years is essential in the context of m-payment system quality. The quality of m-payment service has improved for sure since 2017. Therefore, the research result may be obsolete.
- The authors should present current data about sales via mobile in the UK, as they refer to data from 5 or even 6 years ago.
- In my opinion the hypothesis H4.1-H4.3 – should be divided into three separate hypothesis as they examine difference relationships.
- The research method should be explained more: The authors should explain why they did not conduct a confirmatory factor analysis in order to confirm the measurement model, as it is most often used method in structural equation modelling.
- The final measurement model should be also presented in the figure.
- I suggest to enrich the References with the latest publications concerning the topic of this article.
- The References should be corrected according to requirements of Administrative science journal
- English language and style are fine, but minor spell check should be required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2:
- The purpose of the work and its significance should be defined in the introduction section.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The introduction section has been updated to clarify both the purpose the work and its significance.
- The Introduction part should provide sufficient background, so I recommend to present the results of previous studies concerning the consumers’ discontinuance intention of m-payment. In this section the authors only mention that “there is a dearth of research on IS discontinuous usage including m-payments”, but they do not discuss the results of previous research (line 59-62).
Response: A critical analysis of pertinent literature has been added to the introduction section (lines 66-130).
- The research design needs further description. The authors should explain the research model presented in Figure 1. Why did you remove “user satisfaction” dimension from the model of IS, which was previously included in IS Success Model by DeLone & McLean. At the same time, the authors mention in the text clients’ satisfaction with the system quality/information quality, which is not included in the model (line 194-200). Moreover, each dimension should be described more detailed citing previous research. Based on the literature review, the authors should explain how they understand the term “system quality”, “service quality”, “information quality”.
Response: Thank you for highlighting these critical points. In attending to this comment, we have updated Section 3 by providing a justification for the removal of the “user satisfaction” dimension from the ISS model. Relatedly, in the introduction section and in Section 3 we have also explained why our study focuses solely on discontinuous rather than on continuous intentions. With regard to the terms “system quality”, “service quality”, and “information quality”, they are first explained/defined in the last paragraph (added) in Sub-section 2.2, and then clarified in Section 3, as well as in Appendix A. In all cases we cite previous literature to substantiate the terms.
- The research design needs further description: why the authors did not examine if ‘frequency of use’ effect the ‘intention of use’?
Response: As clarified in the introduction section (lines 131-137), this study focuses specifically on users’ discontinuous rather than continuous intentions, since these intentions are qualitatively different with regard to the ultimate user behavior: not using versus using the technology. While measuring discontinuous intentions, investigating continuous intentions (i.e. ‘intention of use’) seem to become needless and not insightful.
- The authors should explain the timeliness of research as they were done in 2017. In the context of constant improvement of information technologies, but also increasing popularity of m-payment among clients (especially while the rapid growth of e-commerce during pandemic), the m-payment service has been developing and improving year by year. Therefore, the time span of 4 years is essential in the context of m-payment system quality. The quality of m-payment service has improved for sure since 2017. Therefore, the research result may be obsolete.
Response: While it might be assumed that some improvements to remote (not proximity) m-payments systems have been made, the technological issues with mobile network coverage and connection quality, WiFi connection quality, screen design and interface, battery reliability and capacity, to name a few, still remain relevant, potentially driving users to discontinue remote m-payments. In this regard, we have added a short paragraph to Sub-section 4.1, explaining the relevance of the study’s results to the existing context of m-payments.
- The authors should present current data about sales via mobile in the UK, as they refer to data from 5 or 6 years ago.
Response: Following this suggestion, we have updated Sub-section 4.1 with a recent reference, showing that the UK still lags behind in terms of m-payment adoption compared to other countries, thereby justifying the chosen context to conduct the study.
- In my opinion the hypothesis H4.1-H4.3 – should be divided into three separate hypothesis as they examine difference relationships.
Response: As suggested, we have divided H4.1-H4.3 into three separate hypothesis.
- The research method should be explained more: The authors should explain why they did not conduct a confirmatory factor analysis in order to confirm the measurement model, as it is most often used method in structural equation modelling.
Response: In the introductory paragraph in Section 5 we have provided a justification for choosing PLS-SEM in contrast to SEM. Given the small sample size (<300), necessity to conduct multi-group analysis as well as an exploratory stage of the model, we did not adopt Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to test the hypotheses, and accordingly we did not use CFA (confirmatory factor analysis). In applying PLS-SEM, we have strictly followed the recommendations by Garson (2016) and Hair et al. (2011, 2013). However, we have provided an additional justification, following recent studies in the field, for the chosen technique in the introductory paragraph in Section 5.
- The final measurement model should be also presented in the figure.
Response: We strongly believe that Tables 1-5 in Sub-section 5.1 provide enough details regarding the measurement model. We have followed a general approach taken in the pertinent literature, so to be concise and moderate while presenting our results.
- I suggest to enrich the References with the latest publications concerning the topic of this article.
Response: Although studies relevant to discontinuance of m-payments are scarce, we have updated the References in general, but more particularly, we have updated Table 8 in Sub-section 7.1 with papers concerning explaining continuance intentions towards m-payments.
- The References should be corrected according to requirements of Administrative science journal
Response: We have corrected the references according to requirements of the journal.
- English language and style are fine, but minor spell check should be required.
Response: We apologize for this. We have proofread the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I am happy to inform you that I have accepted your revision of the manuscript and will recommend it for publication without further changes. Congratulations. I look forward to reading it online.
Thank you for the opportunity to let me contribute a small part to your publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved and warrants publication in Administrative Sicences without further changes. Congratulations!
