The Effect of Payment Delay on Consumer Purchase Intention
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to revie this manuscript. Please see my feedback below:
The abstract is a bit lacking. What is the originality of the paper? Methods used? Implications?
Please check required citation format for the journal and adjust throughout.
Please provide the reader examples of online and mobile payment methods you are referring to in your research.
The introduction should include more of what is currently going on to justify the study. Many of there pervious literature is dated. Why is this topic timely and important now?
Please spell out acronym NFC in the literature review. It has been a while since seen in the paper. Also, there are three paragraphs with information not cited in this section. Please advise.
The review of literature is strangely organized. Please consider being with the guiding theory and placing hypotheses with their appropriate headings.
Also, there are many dated references throughout. Please update literature with current studies. Pleas also make sure all facts are cited.
A visual framework would also be helpful to view.
Please add an introductory paragraph outlining your studies and set the stage for what is to come. Also, please add justification for conducting three separate studies. I am not sure why these could not have been combined into one pretest and one study.
How were your participant recruited? Any criteria?
What guided your pretest procedures? What guided all studies’ procedures? Please add justification.
Demographic tables would be great to add.
Discussions provided are superficial. You just outlined what was found, but why was this found? Please provide a “so what” to these academic findings and what readers can take from them.
The guiding theory is lost at times. Please make sure you are integrating it throughout your paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research topic is currently relevant and original because this study focuses on payment delay and examines the relationship between consumers' need for closure and temporal construal in payment situations.
The theoretical underpinning of the study is sufficient. The hypotheses put forward are reasonable. The results of the study have practical novelty. The following three empirical studies were conducted: firstly, based on temporal construal theory, it was investigated whether payment delay is a criterion for classifying payment methods; secondly, it was investigated how payment delay and product type affect consumer purchase intention; thirdly, it was investigated whether the effect of payment delay and product type on purchase intention differs according to the level of need for closure among individual consumers. In the reviewer's opinion, the statistical methods chosen by the author(s) for processing the results of the study are fully justified.
To improve the quality of the article, it is recommended that the author(s) supplement paragraphs 3.1.2., 4.1.2., 5.1.2. with a justification of the representativeness of the sample size of respondents in relation to the size of the general population.
The authors' conclusions are fully consistent with the results of the study.
The references are correct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your thorough review and edit of your paper. The paper has been much improved since the first submission.
My only call out is the conclusions of this paper. I still believe it is lacking in your overall contribution and so what. Please consider the following aspects of a proper conclusion as outline by Pedersen, 2018.
"When addressing the major findings, the followings are to be included: the contribution of the study results to the literature; the implications of the results for academicians and others; how the findings will be useful to the profession and audiences such as companies, consumers, and educators or service providers; and what additional research is needed in this area. Guidance to future researchers concerning method components is appropriate.Issues raised in the introduction and review of literature sections should be addressed in the conclusion. Unexpected findings are included in the discussion as are limitations of the study. Discussion of limitations can be framed from the perspective of suggestions for future research. A discussion of the theoretical aspects of the study should be included in the conclusion. If hypotheses were developed and tested from an existing theory, then the results of hypothesis testing should be discussed from the perspective of supporting the theory or indicating a need for a revision of the theory. If theory development was part of the purpose of the study, then a discussion of the next theory development steps needs to be included. Likewise, if a conceptual model was presented, prospective revisions to that model may be offered."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
