A Study of the Impact of Cultural Characteristics on Consumers’ Behavioral Intention for Mobile Payments: A Comparison between China and Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript approaches a topic of interest to researchers and practitioners, as regards the intention of consumers to use mobile payment.
Several aspects of the manuscript must be reconsidered:
a) Title of the manuscript. The current title is "A study evaluating the influence of consumer traits on mobile payment acceptance behavior in China and Korea". As regards this title, at least two aspects must be clarified:
a1) The manuscript focuses on the influence of "consumer traits". However, the abstract of the manuscript focuses on the "cultural characteristics" (see page 1, line 15). The two terms are not identical or similar. A clarification and a better choice of terms are necessary.
a2) The title refers to "mobile payment acceptance behavior", while the abstract refers to "mobile payment service utilization intention" (see page 1, lines 17-18).
b) Abstract. There is an unclear presentation of the aspects discussed in the manuscript. The text "the cultural characteristics of the impact factors" (see page 1, line 23) is not clear.
c) Network platform. The manuscript does not specify what network platform was used for the survey (see page 6, line 230).
d) Statistical representativeness of the sample. The manuscript presents the size and structure of the samples in China and Korea. However, the manuscript does not discuss the statistical representativeness of the sample for the population of China and respectively of Korea. No information is provided on the sampling techniques applied in China and Korea. It is not clear if sampling was based on random or non-random techniques. The existing limitations related to these aspects are not discussed.
e) Implications for research and practice. The clear and detailed presentations of the implications for future research and for business management would be beneficial.
f) Contribution to the research domain. The manuscript does not underline clearly which is the specific contribution brought to the research domain, in comparison to other similar research approaches.
g) Word choices. The manuscript includes words with unclear meanings in the context of the specific sentences within which they are used. An example is the word "intersection" on page 1, line 14, in the text: "have a significant intersection in school, workplace, and life".
h) English grammar. The manuscript needs several changes in order to comply with the English grammar rules.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on my manuscript. I have addressed all of your suggestions by summarizing my thoughts and proposing solutions in the attached document, with specific references to the corresponding sections in the manuscript for your convenience.
Details please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The analysis method, number of samples, analysis results, etc. of this study should be presented in the abstract.
2. In the introduction, the difference between this study and previous studies should be presented. This plays an important role in presenting the necessity and purpose of this study.
3. Looking at the sample characteristics of this study, there are differences in occupation and payment method, so it is questionable whether it meets the purpose of this study. This part needs some explanation.
4. This paper is meaningful in that it analyzes the differences between Korea and China and presents implications by using "Hofstede's cultural dimensions" as a moderating variable in this study. However, the analysis method of the moderating effect is not easily understood. You may get better results if you analyze the between-group chi-squared difference test in the structural equation.
5. In the conclusion, based on the results of the empirical analysis, theoretical and practical implications should be abundantly presented. In particular, the study implications of the moderating effect of "Hofstede's cultural dimensions" will be very great.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on my manuscript. I have addressed all of your suggestions by summarizing my thoughts and proposing solutions in the attached document, with specific references to the corresponding sections in the manuscript for your convenience.Details please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Following the revisions made by authors, the manuscript can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear esteemed reviewer,
I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your insightful and valuable feedback on my research manuscript. Your comments have greatly enriched the quality of my work and have helped me to improve it in many ways.
I truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to carefully reviewing my manuscript and providing me with constructive criticism. Your expertise and guidance have been invaluable in helping me to further develop my research and to refine my ideas.
Once again, thank you very much for your dedicated efforts in reviewing my manuscript. I feel incredibly fortunate to have had the opportunity to benefit from your expertise and knowledge. May you continue to enjoy great success in your future endeavors.
With sincere thanks and warm regards,
Yuqi Zhao
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The chi-square value should be presented in Table 8; through this value, the degree of modification of the goodness-of-fit index of the model can be checked.
2. It is better to omit Figures 2 and 3.
3. It is recommended to put Cronbach's alpha value in Table 6 into Table 9.
4. Figure 4, Table 12, and Table 14 should present the goodness-of-fit indices of the path model.
5. This thesis has too many tables, so it is recommended to delete unnecessary tables because it can interfere with readability.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I have uploaded the specific modifications to the attachment for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
