Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. An additional section explaining the study's recommended strategies must be included so that the implications of results for financial technology effective leadership in rural bank performance betterment methods. It must consist of the mediating roles of adaptive leadership in the relationship between financial technology innovation and the improvement of rural bank performance. The recommended strategies add novelty to the study; otherwise, this kind of study has been performed by several scholars.
   
   2. Revise the abstract to adopt a more scientific approach, showing the statistical results of SEM. Also, numerous inconsistencies in the manuscript need to be corrected, specifically the abbreviations used. Such as, in lines 10-11, "Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM)" it must be in 'capitalised each word' format and then the abbreviation mentioned in the manuscript, for example, Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM).
2. 
   
   The authors should explain financial technology and its application in bank performance to enhance the literature study section. Then, we move to financial technology regulations and hypothesis development. The primary contributions must be emphasised in bullet points in the final paragraph of the Introduction section.

 

4. In the methodology section, line no. 372-373, please provide the questionnaire for executives, including C-level executives and mid-level managers directly involved in the banks' operations and performance, in an appendix and mention it in these lines of methodology section. The sampling technique and size for each category should be provided in a research article, with a proper explanation of why the author chose these methods for sampling.

• Line no. 392-403 section needs significant revision, such as which software and its version have been used for PLS-SEM analysis.
• Lines 401 -403 explain a statistical method for two models.

 

5. Lines no. 405 to 410 must be part of the methodology. In "the common method bias assessment" and similarly, in line no 407, which statistical method has been used, why was that method used only, and what has been done to minimise the biasness or what statistical method has been used, also needs to be explained with results in detail?
6. The result must be more predictive in terms of each selected variable for the study from Table No. 2 to Table No. 6. This section is very concise. A structural equation model needs to be elaborated with a graphical presentation.
7. Is this proposed model applicable to other real-world case studies? Provide a comprehensive explanation. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines the impact of leadership and financial technology (fintech) on the performance of rural banks, a pertinent and current topic in financial management and rural development. The subject is pertinent because the interplay between leadership dynamics and technological adoption enhances the existing literature on organisational performance.

The authors seek to connect leadership positions, specifically innovation and motivation, with performance outcomes in rural banking. The study incorporates fintech as a mediating variable, introducing a contemporary and practical aspect. The conclusion provides actionable suggestions for enhancing leadership within rural financial institutions.

The manuscript does not fully comply with MDPI's editorial standards for chapter organisation. Proposed standard portions include:

Introduction
(Optional) Literature Review
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions

The sections "Literature Review and Hypothesis Development" and "Research Methodology" must be strategically placed to improve clarity and consistency. I propose dividing the "Literature Review and Hypothesis Development" chapter into an independent "Literature Review" and merging the "Hypothesis Development" and "Research Methodology" sections into a singular chapter entitled "Materials and Methods."

The English language of the paper necessitates strengthening. Numerous occurrences of grammatical inaccuracies, clumsy phrasing, and ambiguous phrase construction are present. It is highly recommended to utilise professional proofreading services.

The conclusion references previous research; nonetheless, an expanded discussion section that contrasts this study's findings with the wider literature would enhance the work. The authors are urged to clearly delineate the novelty of their contribution and its implications for existing findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Acceptable form of the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The amended manuscript demonstrates a significant enhancement compared to the original version in terms of both conceptual organisation and methodological clarity. The introduction now situates the study within the resource-based perspective (RBV) more effectively and clearly defines the research gap.

The research design is suitable, and the use of PLS-SEM is adequately substantiated. The measurement and structural models are thoroughly validated, incorporating all common diagnostics (e.g., AVE, CR, VIF, path coefficients). Figures and tables are now distinctly labelled and analysed in the text.

The analysis of results is closely connected to the hypotheses and prior studies, with a clear consideration of the mediating effect's nonsignificance. The conclusion offers valuable theoretical and managerial insights, together with a definitive framework for future research trajectories.