The Evolution of FinTech in Scientific Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I would like to thank you for the possibility of reviewing this interesting paper that I have read with great interest.

The paper may have a clear interest associated to researchers from different scientific disciplines and, therefore, could have a notable repercussion in specialized scientific literature.

Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what the originality and value of the proposed model is. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Please review the next paragraphs for similarity:

Moreover, the development of FinTech could potentially create competition 61 and increased participation in emerging markets (Feyen et al., 2021; Pazarbasioglu et al., 62 2020; Frost et al., 2021). Greater competition would reduce incumbents' market power, 63 thus enhancing efficiency and leading to more diversified activities. Furthermore, as 64 FinTech would create competition, it may help consumers compare products and service 65 offers (OECD, 2018)

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. The paper begins with a literature re-112 view followed by the research methodology. Next, the results and discussions utilising 113 the bibliometric analysis of the papers on Scopus published from 2010 to 2021 are pre-114 sented. Finally, the last section of this paper discusses the theoretical and practical impli-115 cations along with concluding remarks and future research directions. 116

I would like to suggest the following references:

Fülöp, M. T., Topor, D. I., Ionescu, C. A., Căpușneanu, S., Breaz, T. O., & Stanescu, S. G. (2022). Fintech accounting and Industry 4.0: future-proofing or threats to the accounting profession?. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(5), 997-1015.

Akram, U et al. (2021). Impact of digitalization on customers’ well-being in the pandemic period: Challenges and opportunities for the retail industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7533.

Method is well

Conclusions: pleas add theoretical, managerial, and practical implications, limitation and further research. Some parts are included but must be extended.

Overall, I believe that the ideas are well expressed, and the storyline is easily followed by the reader. However, in the course of reading the manuscript, I could identify some minor mistakes that should be dealt with more carefully by the authors.

In short, in my opinion, this is a potentially publishable paper that could make a significant contribution to the specialized literature. However, the authors should make an additional effort to solve the problems previously mentioned.

However, I hope that all these comments will serve the author to improve the quality of the paper. Finally, I hope that the comments will be understood positively by the authors of this interesting paper.

Good luck!

Author Response

1. Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what the originality and value of the proposed model is. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have made changes to the introduction and conclusion sections to state the necessity of this research.

2. Please review the next paragraphs for similarity: Moreover, the development of FinTech could potentially create competition 61 and increased participation in emerging markets (Feyen et al., 2021; Pazarbasioglu et al., 62 2020; Frost et al., 2021). Greater competition would reduce incumbents' market power, 63 thus enhancing efficiency and leading to more diversified activities. Furthermore, as 64 FinTech would create competition, it may help consumers compare products and service 65 offers (OECD, 2018)

Response: We agree with your observation. Thank you for pointing it out. We have revised these sections to eliminate the redundancies.

3. Conclusions: please add theoretical, managerial, and practical implications, limitation and further research. Some parts are included but must be extended.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. All these parts are added to the concluding section of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract needed to be revised due to missing the results of study. 

Page 2 line 44 amend the space at the middle of line.

Introduction is not started appropriately. What is the novelty and originality of your study? the objectives and the rationale of the study not clearly stated. Please clearly emphasize the strengths of your study and methods. How does your manuscript provide insights into the Fin Tech productivity?

Mainly your study lacks of following elements:

A description of the data source and databases used to collect the data and the date range of the search.

A description of the statistical methods used to analyse the data including descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and network analysis.

A summary of the key findings of the analysis, including any trends or patterns observed in the data. The manuscript needs additional tables or figures on results.

Discussion lacks of the limitations of the study, such as the potential biases or inaccuracies in the data collection or analysis.

Study lacks a brief conclusion that summarizes the main findings of the analysis and their implications for the Fin Tech.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Introduction is not started appropriately. What is the novelty and originality of your study? the objectives and the rationale of the study not clearly stated. Please clearly emphasize the strengths of your study and methods. How does your manuscript provide insights into the Fin Tech productivity?

Response: We agree with your observation. The introduction section has been revised to address all of your concerns.

2. Mainly your study lacks of following elements : A description of the data source and databases used to collect the data and the date range of the search. A description of the statistical methods used to analyse the data including descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and network analysis. A summary of the key findings of the analysis, including any trends or patterns observed in the data. The manuscript needs additional tables or figures on results.

Response: We agree with your comment. But we think some of your concerns were already addressed in the last two sections of the methodology. We prevented ourselves from over-describing to keep the whole paper concise. Besides, the summary statistics presented in Table 1 should serve as a summary table.

3. Study lacks a brief conclusion that summarizes the main findings of the analysis and their implications for the FinTech.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the conclusion section to incorporate your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Author Response

1. 1- Where this paper is situated in the literature could be much clearer? Throughout the study, please compare and quote earlier studies findings. 2-     The exposition of the introduction should be entirely improved. I think that authors should merge the two first sections into the introduction. Moreover, authors should put more emphasize on the presence of FinTech in research field. 3-     The scientific interest of the importance of this study needs to be clarified. 

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the introduction section to incorporate all of your suggestions.

2. What are the disadvantages of using Bibliometric method?

Response: Thank you for your comments. To maintain the conciseness of the paper, we have cited the existing literature, which describes the bibliometric analysis's disadvantages and advantages, in the methodology section. The revised version of the manuscript also incorporated the research limitations that presented the lacking of this particular study with the bibliometric method. 

3. I still do not understand what the logic or any objective perspective is as to your decision behind the choice of related keywords "Financial Technologies", "Innovation in Finance", "Technology in Banking", "Digital Banking" and "Financial Inclusion". In a similar way, you could have chosen other sets of keywords and replicate the same analysis.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The usage of these particular keywords is considered a limitation of this research.

4. The phrases in Figure 3 are partly not readable. Furthermore, what do you mean by CR, AU and DE (Figure 3) and what do the colors mean in the same figure.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree with your observation. A brief description of all three columns has been incorporated. However, the figure could not be changed as the software repeatedly produced the same results. This is because of the long sentences attributed to the first column. Other placement of this variable also resulted in obscure output. However, we tried to describe the findings in the respective section.

5. Recheck all typos and references format if anything is missing such as volume, issue, or page number are missing.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We rechecked all the references. The references in this paper are managed using reference management software. The reference library shall be provided if needed.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

First of all, I would like to congratulate on the work and thank you for conducting such an interesting study with a relevant and a very contemporary subject. The paper is very well structured and systematized. The text is clear and logical. The abstract is solid and to the point (it contains the goal, methodology used, findings and contribution). It offers new insights and they are clearly laid out. However, I do have some comments in order to improve the manuscript:

-        First and foremost, I would suggest editing the title of the manuscript: The Evolution of FinTech in scientific research: A bibliometric Analysis

-        Avoid using „we“ – Line 19 - rephrase

-        There are many grammar and syntax errors throughout the text, which make it a little unprofesssional and I would definitely recommend proofreading

-        Delete the Title of 2. Background – this should be a part of the introduction section. However, the introduction seems too long and extensive and it seems as though some points are continuously repeated.

-        In the introduction section, please explain the aim of the research. You should explain why you need this research and what is the scientific contribution?

-        What is the research question? What are the aims? What is your methodology? Why you selected this methodology?

-        Section literature review is missling? You state in the last paragraph of the  section 2 on page 3 that there is a literature review section, but it is not presented.

-        Methodology section and results are clearly presented. This is the best part of the paper.

-        Figure 3 – please state what the abbreviations CR, AU and DE mean

-        Conclusion is too short and does not address all the important raised issues. You should summarize and highlight all the important findings. Moreover, you should state the objectives of the research and whether this study reached its objectives. Shortly mention the methodology used and the process. State the limitations of the study and scientific and practical contributions of this study.

-        Revise and check the reference list (it seems as though it has not been checked prior to sending the manuscript). Please revise it.

1.     What is the main question addressed by the research? The main objective and research question are to investigate how FinTech evolved over time in research using bibliometric analysis.

2.     Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? – It is quite interesting and compelling research question. I find it topical. It does address gaps in this field. However, it is up to the Editor to assess the scientific contribution.

3.     What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? – FinTech is somewhat neglected by scholars and researchers. Therefore, it is refreshing to see this kind of paper.

4.     What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? – The methodology is solid and the analysis is thorough.

5.     Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed? - Conclusion is too short and does not address all the important raised issues. You should summarize and highlight all the important findings. Moreover, you should state the objectives of the research and whether this study reached its objectives. Shortly mention the methodology used and the process. State the limitations of the study and scientific and practical contributions of this study.

6.     Are the references appropriate? -  -This is ok.

7.     Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. – No comments.

Author Response

1. First and foremost, I would suggest editing the title of the manuscript: The Evolution of FinTech in scientific research: A bibliometric Analysis

Response: Thank you for your wonderful suggestion. We revised the name of this article as you have suggested.

2. What is the main question addressed by the research? The main objective and research question are to investigate how FinTech evolved over time in research using bibliometric analysis. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? – It is quite interesting and compelling research question. I find it topical. It does address gaps in this field. However, it is up to the Editor to assess the scientific contribution.

Avoid using "we "– Line 19 – rephrase. There are many grammar and syntax errors throughout the text, which make it a little unprofesssional and I would definitely recommend proofreading. Delete the Title of 2. Background – this should be a part of the introduction section. However, the introduction seems too long and extensive and it seems as though some points are continuously repeated. In the introduction section, please explain the aim of the research. You should explain why you need this research and what is the scientific contribution? What is the research question? What are the aims? What is your methodology? Why you selected this methodology?

Section literature review is missling? You state in the last paragraph of the  section 2 on page 3 that there is a literature review section, but it is not presented.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We incorporated all the recommendations you provided. We removed "We" from the abstract and revised the introduction and conclusion sections, and rechecked the grammar and syntax errors.

3. Conclusion is too short and does not address all the important raised issues. You should summarize and highlight all the important findings.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The conclusion section has been revised.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

ok

Reviewer 3 Report

I see that authors have done a thorough job of addressing our comments, providing new analyses. This work will make a nice contribution to the reader. Good luck !