A Comparative Study of Users versus Non-Users’ Behavioral Intention towards M-Banking Apps’ Adoption
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract: It should be revised. For example, at a minimum, an abstract should anchor the reader by including the purpose, research gaps, research methodology, major findings, and contributions.
What are the characteristics of the research place (Greece)? What category does this country fall into, and based on what criteria? What are other countries similar to Greece in terms of these criteria? This information may help to generalize the scope and findings of this study.
The first paragraph in section 2 is bold and without any citations. The same should be deleted.
The literature review section should exclusively discuss the theory i.e. UTAUT, how mobile banking has been defined and conceptualized in the recent literature, and the status of mobile banking in Greece, the context of this study. The following study could provide the recent perspective on digital banking and payments, including mobile:.
- Karjaluoto, H., Glavee-Geo, R., Ramdhony, D., Shaikh, A. A., & Hurpaul, A. (2021). Consumption values and mobile banking services: understanding the urban–rural dichotomy in a develo** economy. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 39 (2), pp. 272-293.
It is highly advisable to move the definitions and explanations concerning the variables to the literature review section, and the hypothesis section should exclusively discuss the hypothesized relationships.
The research hypotheses are well developed. I suggest the authors extend the UTAUT theory by discussing previous studies investigating these variables within the mobile banking literature.
I wonder if the antecedent "adoption intention" is akin or similar to "behavioral intention" since both the terms have been used interchangeably in section 3. Please recheck and clarify
Figure 1 should be redrafted in order to clearly depict the "+ive" and "-ive" relationships.
With regard to the methodology section, since the study was conducted in Greece, in which language did you design the survey? When and how did you conduct the pilot test of the survey? Explain everything.
Theoretical implications should be discussed in light of previous findings in the mobile banking literature. While some more effort should be made to propose actionable managerial implications.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
At first we would like to thank you for taking the time to formulate your useful suggestions and comments. In the following paragraphs we respond to your suggestions and how we acted in order to improve the manuscript based on your comments.
SUGGESTION: Abstract: It should be revised. For example, at a minimum, an abstract should anchor the reader by including the purpose, research gaps, research methodology, major findings, and contributions.
ANSWER: Abstract was revised based on reviewer’s comments.
SUGGESTION: What are the characteristics of the research place (Greece)? What category does this country fall into, and based on what criteria? What are other countries similar to Greece in terms of these criteria? This information may help to generalize the scope and findings of this study.
ANSWER: 5th paragraph of the Introduction section was improved by incorporating information about Greece and countries with similar characteristics.
SUGGESTION: The first paragraph in section 2 is bold and without any citations. The same should be deleted.
ANSWER: This is an introductory paragraph for the literature review section. All the ten empirical studies mentioned are analyzed and cited in the next paragraphs of this section. This is the reason why these citations are not mentioned on the 1st paragraph.
SUGGESTION: The literature review section should exclusively discuss the theory i.e. UTAUT, how mobile banking has been defined and conceptualized in the recent literature, and the status of mobile banking in Greece, the context of this study. The following study could provide the recent perspective on digital banking and payments, including mobile:.
- Karjaluoto, H., Glavee-Geo, R., Ramdhony, D., Shaikh, A. A., & Hurpaul, A. (2021). Consumption values and mobile banking services: understanding the urban–rural dichotomy in a develo** economy. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 39 (2), pp. 272-293.
It is highly advisable to move the definitions and explanations concerning the variables to the literature review section, and the hypothesis section should exclusively discuss the hypothesized relationships.
The research hypotheses are well developed. I suggest the authors extend the UTAUT theory by discussing previous studies investigating these variables within the mobile banking literature.
ANSWER: As it is mentioned this paper, and its literature review section as a result, focus only to m-banking apps’ behavioral adoption intentions. Taking into consideration that there are numerous studies on the broad topic of m-banking adoption; and many of them applied UTAUT, it was decided to concentrate only to empirical studies that have exclusively examined m-banking apps’ adoption. This is the reason why the whole paper was written by having m-banking apps’ adoption as the central point. We prefer to focus only on m-banking apps as this is the most applied and promising method of m-banking. Additionally, as far as it is concerned, this approach does provide better the scientific contribution of this study to the topic examined.
SUGGESTION: I wonder if the antecedent "adoption intention" is akin or similar to "behavioral intention" since both the terms have been used interchangeably in section 3. Please recheck and clarify
ANSWER: There are similar, however, we rechecked and clarified it accordingly.
SUGGESTION: Figure 1 should be redrafted in order to clearly depict the "+ive" and "-ive" relationships.
ANSWER: Figure 1 was redrafted according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
SUGGESTION: With regard to the methodology section, since the study was conducted in Greece, in which language did you design the survey? When and how did you conduct the pilot test of the survey? Explain everything.
ANSWER: Based on your comments, a paragraph (2nd) was added to the 4.1 subsection.
SUGGESTION: Theoretical implications should be discussed in light of previous findings in the mobile banking literature. While some more effort should be made to propose actionable managerial implications.
ANSWER: Section 6.1 was improved based on reviewer’s comments.
Your sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting, well-written, and well-structured paper.
However, the paper is not written according to the journal's instructions. The authors have to use the numeric referencing system proposed by the journal.
Regarding content, the authors have to extend the section of practical implications and give some more specific "guidelines" on how banks can use the findings for users and not-users (depending on each of the variables).
Please also mention which statistical software was used for the analysis.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
At first we would like to thank you for taking the time to formulate your useful suggestions and comments. In the following paragraphs we respond to your suggestions and how we acted in order to improve the manuscript based on your comments.
The numeric referencing system was applied to the paper and the statistical software used was mentioned in Section 5.2. Moreover, Section 6.1 (Theoretical and Practical Implications) was also improved accordingly.
Your sincerely,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some of my previous comments were either ignored or not addressed appropriately. Please see below:
1) The literature review section should exclusively discuss the theory
i.e. UTAUT, how mobile banking has been defined and conceptualized in the recent literature, and the status of mobile banking in Greece, the context of this study. The following study could provide the recent perspective on digital banking and payments, including mobile:
• Karjaluoto, H., Glavee-Geo, R., Ramdhony, D., Shaikh, A. A., & Hurpaul, A.
(2021). Consumption values and mobile banking services: understanding the
urban–rural dichotomy in a develo** economy. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 39 (2), pp. 272-293.
It is highly advisable to move the definitions and explanations concerning the variables to the literature review section, and the hypothesis section should exclusively discuss the hypothesized relationships.
The research hypotheses are well developed. I suggest the authors extend the UTAUT theory by discussing previous studies investigating these variables within the mobile banking literature.
2) I wonder if the antecedent "adoption intention" is akin or similar to
"behavioral intention" since both the terms have been used interchangeably in section 3. Please recheck and clarify
The authors responded that these two terms are similar in nature. I beg to differ.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thank you once more for taking the time to formulate your useful suggestions and comments. In the following pages we respond to your suggestions and how we acted in order to further improve the manuscript based on your comments.
Some of my previous comments were either ignored or not addressed appropriately. Please see below:
SUGGESTION : 1) The literature review section should exclusively discuss the theory
i.e. UTAUT, how mobile banking has been defined and conceptualized in the recent literature, and the status of mobile banking in Greece, the context of this study. The following study could provide the recent perspective on digital banking and payments, including mobile:
• Karjaluoto, H., Glavee-Geo, R., Ramdhony, D., Shaikh, A. A., & Hurpaul, A.
(2021). Consumption values and mobile banking services: understanding the
urban–rural dichotomy in a develo** economy. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 39 (2), pp. 272-293.
It is highly advisable to move the definitions and explanations concerning the variables to the literature review section, and the hypothesis section should exclusively discuss the hypothesized relationships.
The research hypotheses are well developed. I suggest the authors extend the UTAUT theory by discussing previous studies investigating these variables within the mobile banking literature.
ANSWER: The concept of implementing this empirical study was to exclusively focus on the m-banking apps’ adoption behavioral intention. This is the reason why the literature review section includes all the extant empirical studies which have examined only m-banking apps and not m-banking in general. If this chances, it completely alters the whole paper’s philosophy. Moreover, we just utilize UTAUT model as it is considered as one of the most preferable ones for the purpose of our study. Thus, we do not want to focus on the UTAUT neither to m-banking in general. As a result, we would be grateful to the reviewer if he/she respects and accepts our initial concept and do not force us to alter Sections 2 and 3. We strongly believe that the current format is ideal for presenting our main research scope.
Regarding the status of m-banking in Greece (the research place where this study took place), we have already included a paragraph in Section 1, based on reviewer’s previous suggestions (Round 1). To add to this, m-banking definition is also analyzed in Section 1.
SUGGESTION: 2) I wonder if the antecedent "adoption intention" is akin or similar to
"behavioral intention" since both the terms have been used interchangeably in section 3. Please recheck and clarify
The authors responded that these two terms are similar in nature. I beg to differ.
ANSWER: Based on reviewer’s comments, this issue was fixed throughout Section 3.
Your sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
