Risks of the Use of FinTech in the Financial Inclusion of the Population: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study systematically analyzed 171 articles to examine the risks of fintech in promoting financial inclusion. Overall, the study makes sense, recognizing that the dividends of fintech can also bring challenges, especially in the areas of data security, regulation, and financial privacy.
While I appreciate the idea of this manuscript, I feel there are some concerns.
First, the content of the first paragraph of the introduction is a little confusing, which first needs to focus on the importance of financial technology in inclusive finance, which is also the reason for the rapid development of financial technology. With this, it needs to be explained that due to laws and regulations, technology maturity and other issues, fintech has also produced some negative effects in the application of inclusive finance.
Second, the introduction does not introduce the core ideas and main contributions of this study. What is the contribution of this study relative to the existing bibliometric articles?
Third, the content of Section 2 is terrible. This needs to be written in several parts (there are multiple paragraphs), which can include the concept of fintech, the concept of financial inclusion, the potential role of fintech in financial inclusion, etc.
Fourth, Section 3 should include method introduction and sample description. For example, the contents of Figures 2 and 3 should be in this section.
Fifth, Figure 5 can show the keyword characteristics of research in different types of countries. After all, different samples may lead to different applications of tech finance.
Sixth, Table 6 only shows the impact of fintech on financial inclusion, which also requires the table to introduce the risks and characteristics of fintech.
Seventh, the discussion and study of hot trends should be placed in a separate Section of Section 4, and should not be placed in the last section.
The last part should be conclusions and policy implications.
Author Response
Comment 1: First, the content of the first paragraph of the introduction is a little confusing, which first needs to focus on the importance of financial technology in inclusive finance, which is also the reason for the rapid development of financial technology. With this, it needs to be explained that due to laws and regulations, technology maturity and other issues, fintech has also produced some negative effects in the application of inclusive finance.
Answer 1: The first paragraph of the introduction has been revised to clearly emphasize the importance of financial technology in inclusive finance and to highlight challenges such as regulatory frameworks, technology maturity, and potential adverse effects of fintech adoption. The paragraph has been restructured for better clarity.
Comment 2: Second, the introduction does not introduce the core ideas and main contributions of this study. What is the contribution of this study relative to the existing bibliometric articles?
Ansewer 2: The introduction now explicitly outlines the main ideas and contributions of the study, particularly the systematic identification and categorization of risks related to fintech and financial inclusion, distinguishing it from previous bibliometric studies.
Comment 3: Third, the content of Section 2 is terrible. This needs to be written in several parts (there are multiple paragraphs), which can include the concept of fintech, the concept of financial inclusion, the potential role of fintech in financial inclusion, etc.
Answer3: Section 2 has been thoroughly restructured and divided into multiple subsections (2.1 Concept of FinTech, 2.2 Concept of Financial Inclusion, 2.3 Potential Role of FinTech), clearly defining each concept and its relevance.
Comment 4: Fourth, Section 3 should include method introduction and sample description. For example, the contents of Figures 2 and 3 should be in this section.
Answer 4: Section 3 now includes a detailed explanation of the methodology and sample description, with Figures 2 and 3 properly relocated into the methodology section.
Comment 5: Fifth, Figure 5 can show the keyword characteristics of research in different types of countries. After all, different samples may lead to different applications of tech finance.
Answer 5: Figure 5 has been enhanced to show keyword characteristics of research in different types of countries, clearly distinguishing research trends between developed and emerging economies and highlighting the need for region-specific policy strategies.
Comment 6: Sixth, Table 6 only shows the impact of fintech on financial inclusion, which also requires the table to introduce the risks and characteristics of fintech.
Seventh, the discussion and study of hot trends should be placed in a separate Section of Section 4, and should not be placed in the last section.
The last part should be conclusions and policy implications.
Answer 6: Table 6 has been expanded to also present risks and characteristics of fintech. Furthermore, the discussion on hot trends has been moved to a dedicated new section (Section 4), and the final part is now reserved solely for conclusions and policy implications.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript provides an analytical examination of FinTech's role in financial inclusion, with a focus on the risks associated with its implementation. The PRISMA methodology is suited for conducting a systematic literature review, ensuring a disciplined approach to synthesizing current information. The study emphasizes subjects such as mobile money, digital lending, regulatory hurdles, and financial literacy; yet, while the topic is timely and relevant to current academic conversations, the authors must address many fundamental concerns:
The abstract is well-structured, however the authors could explicitly highlight the main risks highlighted (for example, data privacy, financial literacy gaps, regulatory limitations) and their implications for stakeholders in the final section.
The introduction effectively frames the study but lacks a concise statement on the research gap. Clarify please what unique contribution does it make?
The use of a single database (Web of Science) may limit the breadth of the systematic review. Provide a detailed table explaining the article selection process (e.g., keywords, time frame between 2020 and 2025; journal ranking).
The document combines the discussion and conclusion parts, reducing clarity. The authors evaluate data while describing conclusions, making it impossible to separate critical analysis from significant takeaways. The discussion should critically assess the results in light of current research, and the conclusion should summarize key findings and stress implications. The biggest shortcoming is in the discussion area, where several questions can be answered in accordance with the three RQ.
In the discussion, the authors need to include real-world examples of FinTech regulations that succeeded or failed in addressing financial inclusion challenges (e.g., regulatory sandboxes in the UK and Singapore).
Moreover, they can discuss strategies that have been effective in improving financial literacy for digital financial services.
They must specify what more research is required (e.g., empirical studies on AI-driven credit scoring and financial inclusion outcomes) and recommend regulatory reforms or technology solutions to reduce the identified dangers.
The study concludes that blockchain and bitcoin have fewer links to broader finance applications. As a result, more research into blockchain's potential for financial inclusion (for example, identity verification and smart contracts for microfinance) could strengthen the study's contribution.
What are the primary drivers of the changes in fintech research output between 2020 and 2025?
How do regulatory laws affect fintech research and adoption across different regions?(sociodemographic, etc.)How do geopolitical and economic factors (e.g., inflation, trade policies) influence fintech innovation and financial inclusion?What role do major financial institutions (e.g., central banks, international organizations) play in shaping fintech development in emerging markets?
Finally, on closer inspection, some elements of the manuscript appear to be generated by artificial intelligence. There are some redundancy and a lack of complex rationality in certain sections of the manuscript.
Good luck
Comments on the Quality of English Languagefair english
Author Response
Comment 1: The abstract is well-structured, however the authors could explicitly highlight the main risks highlighted (for example, data privacy, financial literacy gaps, regulatory limitations) and their implications for stakeholders in the final section.
Answer 1: The abstract has been supplemented to explicitly mention the main risks (e.g., data privacy, financial literacy gaps, regulatory limitations) and their implications for stakeholders.
Comment 2 The introduction effectively frames the study but lacks a concise statement on the research gap. Clarify please what unique contribution does it make?
Answer 2: The introduction now explicitly states the research gap this study addresses, particularly the systematic risk categorization, thus clearly differentiating it from previous works.
Comment 3: The use of a single database (Web of Science) may limit the breadth of the systematic review. Provide a detailed table explaining the article selection process (e.g., keywords, time frame between 2020 and 2025; journal ranking). The document combines the discussion and conclusion parts, reducing clarity. The authors evaluate data while describing conclusions, making it impossible to separate critical analysis from significant takeaways. The discussion should critically assess the results in light of current research, and the conclusion should summarize key findings and stress implications. The biggest shortcoming is in the discussion area, where several questions can be answered in accordance with the three RQ.
Answer 3: A detailed table explaining the article selection process (keywords, timeframe 2020-2025, journal ranking) has been added. The discussion and conclusion sections have been separated for better clarity and to allow a distinct critical analysis.
Comment 4: In the discussion, the authors need to include real-world examples of FinTech regulations that succeeded or failed in addressing financial inclusion challenges (e.g., regulatory sandboxes in the UK and Singapore). Moreover, they can discuss strategies that have been effective in improving financial literacy for digital financial services.
They must specify what more research is required (e.g., empirical studies on AI-driven credit scoring and financial inclusion outcomes) and recommend regulatory reforms or technology solutions to reduce the identified dangers.
The study concludes that blockchain and bitcoin have fewer links to broader finance applications. As a result, more research into blockchain's potential for financial inclusion (for example, identity verification and smart contracts for microfinance) could strengthen the study's contribution.
What are the primary drivers of the changes in fintech research output between 2020 and 2025?
How do regulatory laws affect fintech research and adoption across different regions?(sociodemographic, etc.)How do geopolitical and economic factors (e.g., inflation, trade policies) influence fintech innovation and financial inclusion?What role do major financial institutions (e.g., central banks, international organizations) play in shaping fintech development in emerging markets?
Answer4: The discussion has been enriched with real-world examples of successful and failed regulatory practices (sandbox approaches in the UK and Singapore) and strategies to improve financial literacy. Areas requiring further research, such as blockchain potential and AI-driven credit scoring outcomes, have been specified.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on "Risks in the use of FinTech in the financial inclusion of the population: A systematic review of the literature”.
Content comments:
The aim of the article is “to identify gaps in knowledge concerning the necessity for additional studies on digital lending and the influence of financial literacy on FinTech adoption” (lines 50-52). Authors wish to “map key research on the topic and gain a deeper understanding of the current landscape of risks related to FinTech that affect financial inclusion” (lines 18-19). The paper presents an interesting topic of financial inclusion/FinTech adoption by applying bibliometrics analyses. However, the overall quality of the paper is average. The article is based on a conventional methodology and the results are very weak or obvious for researchers working on this topic. For examples: “Firstly, the remarkable interrelationship between digital financial services, fintech, mobile payments, and economic growth underscores the vital role of digitalization in contemporary finance” (lines 310-312), etc. The article does not provide original and new contribution to its theme. The results are poor and not enough contextualized.
Few remarks:
How did the authors select the articles included in the bibliometric analyses? Authors indicate that they used several terms (“The following keywords were used for the search: "FinTech" AND "Financial Inclusion" AND "Risks" (lines 165-166). But how did the authors search for these keywords in Web of Science, how did they identify records from Web of Science? Did they search for these keywords in the abstracts of the articles, in the body of the articles, in the keywords, titles, etc. The article does not provide this information.
Although the authors of the article clearly state that their research is carried out over the period 2020-2025 “RQ1: What are the current trends in publications about the risks of using FinTech in the financial inclusion of the population?” (lines 53-54), it would have been interesting to base this bibliometric research on the entire period covering this subject. The introduction of FinTech in financial inclusion programs is a recent phenomenon. The first programs appeared in the 2000s in India, Kenya, Nigeria, etc. Restricting the analysis period is a real shame and prevents the reader from having an overview. In addition, it was entirely possible to focus on certain periods to understand recent trends such as the increase in articles on China and the recent lower prevalence of India.
While the subject of the article is suitable for publication in the Journal of Risk and Financial Management, the article does not provide enough contextual information on the use of FinTech in financial inclusion. The data analysed by the authors could be interesting and add value to the article. However, the literature used is not sufficient and the analysis of the data is not put into perspective with other work. The article therefore deserves to be reworked by including more contextualising elements and by offering the reader a real dialogue between the data analysis, the results and other work on bibliometric.
Author Response
Review 3
Comment 1: How did the authors select the articles included in the bibliometric analyses? Authors indicate that they used several terms (“The following keywords were used for the search: "FinTech" AND "Financial Inclusion" AND "Risks" (lines 165-166). But how did the authors search for these keywords in Web of Science, how did they identify records from Web of Science? Did they search for these keywords in the abstracts of the articles, in the body of the articles, in the keywords, titles, etc. The article does not provide this information.
Answer1: A detailed description of the article selection process in Web of Science has been added to the methodology section, explaining that keywords were searched within article titles, abstracts, and topics.
Comment 2: Although the authors of the article clearly state that their research is carried out over the period 2020-2025 “RQ1: What are the current trends in publications about the risks of using FinTech in the financial inclusion of the population?” (lines 53-54), it would have been interesting to base this bibliometric research on the entire period covering this subject. The introduction of FinTech in financial inclusion programs is a recent phenomenon. The first programs appeared in the 2000s in India, Kenya, Nigeria, etc. Restricting the analysis period is a real shame and prevents the reader from having an overview. In addition, it was entirely possible to focus on certain periods to understand recent trends such as the increase in articles on China and the recent lower prevalence of India.
Answer 2: It was clarified that although the primary focus was on the 2020–2025 period, the analysis window was extended to 2010–2025 to better capture historical developments and trends in fintech and financial inclusion.
Comment 3: While the subject of the article is suitable for publication in the Journal of Risk and Financial Management, the article does not provide enough contextual information on the use of FinTech in financial inclusion. The data analysed by the authors could be interesting and add value to the article.
Answer 3: Additional contextual examples have been included, showcasing real-world applications of fintech solutions across different regions, thereby enriching the data analysis.
Comment 4: However, the literature used is not sufficient and the analysis of the data is not put into perspective with other work. The article therefore deserves to be reworked by including more contextualising elements and by offering the reader a real dialogue between the data analysis, the results and other work on bibliometric.
Answer 4: The literature base has been significantly expanded and the results are now better contextualized by comparing findings with other bibliometric studies, creating a richer and more comprehensive dialogue.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my comments have been addressed.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have taken many of the reviewers' comments into account. The article is more precise and better positions the results/observations within the literature. Finally, the methodology is more clearly defined.
The weaknesses highlighted during the first assessment have mostly been addressed. However, work remains to be done to revise the references.
