National Payment Switches and the Power of Cognitive Computing against Fintech Fraud
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript explores the role of cognitive computing in detecting financial fraud in National Payment Switches. The authors use these cases to analyze the importance of cognitive computing tools in preventing and detecting financial fraud. However, these cases were collected from the relevant literature and did not yield additional results, which diminishes the originality of this study and therefore limits the contribution of the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful feedback.
I added additional results by improving the methodology. In red are highlighted all the modifications and improvements.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the paper.
I somewhat enjoyed reading the article entitled “National Payment Switches and the Power of Cognitive Computing Against Fintech Fraud”. It is a very interesting subject to research and to improve. However, I have some considerations, hoping these will help the author to improve the research.
1. Title “National Payment Switches and the Power of Cognitive Computing Against Fintech Fraud” does reflect the essence of the article, but I suggest correcting it a little in order to reflect better the research. Now the title gives two research objects: national payment switches and cognitive computing. I suggest, for example, “The Power of Cognitive Computing Against Fintech Fraud in national payment switches” or similar showing only one research object.
2. Abstract and introduction. The abstract is good but does not reflect the main conclusions and scientific contribution. I didn’t find the main objective of the research in the introduction in one clear sentence – what purpose is to analyze 19 real-world systems of cognitive computing tools in different countries.
In addition, the introduction consists of the relevance of the topic. Still, we can’t find early literature in this field – who analyzed this topic earlier, what are the results of these analyses, and why we need to analyze more this. Therefore, there is no presented clearly gap in the existing scientific literature. Broadly, the introduction is very practical including examples of India and Nigeria (92-95rows), but it doesn’t show the situation in practice and theoretical research worldwide. The author wrote “existing relevant literature” in 109 row, but it can’t be found in the article.
3. Materials and methods. This section is very poor. Table 1 presents the research framework, but it is very simple: 1) 4-6 points are too simple for the research article; 2) the 2nd point repeats the information. This section with the table is less than one page, but we can’t find applied analysis methods, the kind of analysis, etc.
4. Findings. It is not clear why the author has chosen these particular countries for the analysis, what features in their payment systems are so important for analysis, or if they represent something specific in national systems.
5. Conclusions. In the absence of a specific objective for the study, the conclusions are very simple and implicit without a study. The objective should be set in such a way as to arrive at conclusions that are more concrete and demonstrate a scientific contribution, e.g. to look for the most effective application of the measures, the most effective result applied by the country, or so on, from the analysis of the case studies. Now it is a simple presentation of existing practices in different countries. Besides, the author did not show "The Power of Cognitive Computing Against Fintech Fraud" (from the title) in the article and conclusions. What is the power?
6. The text is not in order in 209-209 rows and further numbering, numbering in 540-574 rows, and 690-707 rows; something is unclear in 754-755 rows.
7. Australian case was mentioned twice in 3.1.4. and 3.1.7. sections; sections 3.1.16 and 3.1.19. are without the name of the country. If Australia is mentioned twice then it is analyzed not 19 countries like it was written in the abstract.
8. The same expressions are repeated throughout the text in many cases, sometimes it seems that it is from the internet like an advertisement – 3.1.1.-3.1.19 sections could be condensed and analyzed in a single comprehensive more visual table and then analyzed showing the power of cognitive computing against fintech fraud.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful feedback.
- Changed the title accordingly
- Abstract improved as per your suggestions
- Added more results by improving the methodology
- effective applications with definition of more streamlined focus and more coherent results
- Specified 19 cases, 18 countries
- In red are highlighted all the modifications and improvements.
Reviewer 3 Report
From the overall presentation I would say that interesting research work has been done. The topic is also important for the readers of the journal. However, I have a few more significant challenges with the paper.
The aim of the paper should be included more clearly in the introduction section.
“Materials and Methods” section should be re-written according to “Manuscript preparation guidelines” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/BDCC/instructions
The research methods used to analyze the nineteen cases should be explained.
“The nineteen cases analysed provide empirical evidence on patterns and common practices ….” (lines 843-844). I did not see empirical evidence in this paper. Taking into consideration that the authors have focused on literature review, the title of the paper should be modified.
The theoretical part remains at a modest level. At this stage, it does not yet provide an in-depth review of the previous literature. It is more a description than analysis.
The discussion of the results remains quite superficial. The original contribution of the research has to be presented by focusing on the research results based on the research questions. It would be appropriate to specify in more detail how this research differs from the already published paper that deals with a similar topic. To increase the significance of the results, the discussion part should embrace the differences and similarities among your findings and those of other scholars.
You need also to improve the practical and academic implications. 
Conclusions should be expanded, pointing to the limitations of the analyzed problem and defining the directions of further research.
The author has to pay attention to references inside the paper as well as the reference list.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful feedback.
I added additional results by improving the methodology. In red are highlighted all the modifications and improvements.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made significant revisions to highlight the contribution of the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind Feedback
Reviewer 2 Report
The author made a huge work improving the article! But some problems are left:
1. We can not find the previous literature in this research field - who analyzed this subject earlier and what the results are.
2. The clear purpose of this research in one sentence is needed in the introduction, abstract, and conclusions.
3. The question remains why the author chose to analyze these particular countries. The arguments are needed.
4. There are no comments about Table 4.
5. Is this grouping of tools and techniques in table 5 created by the author or not? A reference is needed.
6. Corrections are needed in references no. 24, 49, 45, 54, 52, 69, 76, 92, 93, 96, 110, and others. Please, check all references that they'd comply requirements of the journal and provide all information.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind feedback,
Below are the requested improvements:
1. We can not find the previous literature in this research field - who analyzed this subject earlier and what the results are.
The literature is quite general. No specific article addressed the specific case of the National Payment Switches and their CC applications so far, hence the Unique Selling Point of this research.
2. The clear purpose of this research in one sentence is needed in the introduction, abstract, and conclusions.
ADDED.
3. The question remains why the author chose to analyze these particular countries. The arguments are needed.
EXPLAINED AND CLARIFIED.
4. There are no comments about Table 4.
UPDATED. More comments are provided.
5. Is this grouping of tools and techniques in table 5 created by the author or not? A reference is needed.
UPDATED. Own Elaboration
6. Corrections are needed in references no. 24, 49, 45, 54, 52, 69, 76, 92, 93, 96, 110, and others. Please, check all references that they'd comply requirements of the journal and provide all information.
UPDATED
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the revised version, the manuscript has been extended and improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind feedback
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The purpose of the study should be in the appropriate place in the conclusions and summary,
