Digital Financial Services and Sustainable Development: Temporal Trade-Offs and the Moderating Role of Financial Literacy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The gaps are well articulated but the presentation of the manuscript requires some work.

The authors made signficant contribution to the body of knowledge within the the domain of the subject matter.

The literature review section is badly presented. Empirical review is not clearly presented and theoretical literature is unnecessary lengthy.  The authors in my opinion needs to rework this section.

On the methodology section, while it is relatively alright, the presentation can be much better. No model specification. The authors need to specify the models connecting the dependent variables with independent variables. 

There should be clearly stated models capturing how each of the gap is filled.

The discussion of the result can be relatively reduced; especially the limitation section is too too much and must be summarized or the authors try to factor in those limitation in his work

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Overview:

[1] Summary of Manuscript and Key Contributions

This manuscript empirically examines how digital financial services (MFS) impact short- and long-term sustainable financial behaviors in the U.S. population, using a large, nationally representative dataset (NFCS 2021). The authors distinguish temporal dimensions of financial behavior and explore the moderating role of three financial literacy constructs: objective knowledge (OK), subjective knowledge (SK), and perceived ability (PA). The study adopts a behavioral economics framework and articulates the "sustainability paradox," where MFS simultaneously promotes long-term resilience and short-term vulnerability. Key contributions include:

• Novel temporal bifurcation of financial behavior into short-term (e.g., spending control) and long-term (e.g., retirement planning).
• Large-scale empirical evidence linking digital finance use to behavioral sustainability metrics.
• Identification of distinct moderating effects of financial literacy dimensions.
• Policy-relevant implications for digital financial education and behavior-informed regulation.

The research is relevant and methodologically rigorous, advancing fintech and sustainable development literature.

 

[2] Detailed Evaluation by Section

Abstract (Page 1)

• The abstract is well-organized, methodologically informative, and communicates the core findings effectively.
• Suggestion: To hook the reader, consider emphasizing the novelty of the "dual-pattern" effects earlier.

Introduction (Pages 2–4)

• Lines 10–34: The motivation for studying the intersection of fintech and sustainability is well-presented.
• Lines 35–78: The introduction appropriately problematizes the lack of clarity in the MFS-sustainability relationship and introduces the hypothesis-driven model.
• Strength: Using behavioral theories (Construal Level Theory, Dual Process Theory, Social Cognitive Theory) to ground hypotheses is exemplary.
• Suggestion: A minor redundancy exists in explaining financial literacy dimensions; streamline explanations (Lines 62–75).

Literature Review (Pages 4–6)

• Offers robust engagement with both fintech and behavioral literature.
• Lines 110–133: More clarity is needed on how this study diverges from or builds on Han & Montalto (2021) and Goyal et al. (2023).

Methodology (Pages 6–10)

• Line 150–155: Sampling strategy (quota-based from NFCS) is appropriate; however, potential biases from online panel sampling should be acknowledged.
• Line 160–168: Constructs are clearly operationalized. The distinction between OK, SK, and PA is well-formulated.
• Line 173–185: Regression design is sophisticated and correctly applied for ordinal outcomes.
• Tables 1–2 (Pages 9–10): Excellent clarity in presenting variable definitions and descriptive statistics.
• Suggestion: Include multicollinearity diagnostics (e.g., VIFs) to reinforce regression reliability.

Results (Pages 11–14)

• Lines 200–243: Findings are carefully explained with support from Tables 3–5. The dual-pattern (negative short-term vs. positive long-term) is a significant contribution.
• Table 4: Moderation effects are convincingly demonstrated. Consider including marginal effects plots for interaction terms.
• Figure 1 (Page 12): The Conceptual model is highly useful. Consider repositioning this earlier in the manuscript to orient the reader upfront.

Discussion (Pages 14–17)

• Lines 245–295: The interpretation of OK as protective and PA as risk-enhancing is novel and theoretically sound.
• Strength: Integration with behavioral economics and policy relevance is high. The "sustainability paradox" is a strong conceptual addition.
• Suggestion: Deepen the critical comparison with studies that claim MFS improves short-term decision-making (e.g., via automation tools).

Conclusion (Page 18)

• Effectively summarizes theoretical and policy insights.
• Lines 310–323: The call for platform-specific financial education is a valuable recommendation.
• Suggestion: Discuss technological inclusivity briefly (i.e., access gaps among digitally excluded populations).

References (Pages 19–22)

• Citations are recent and relevant, including from 2023 to 2025.
• Formatting appears consistent with journal standards.
• Suggestion: Ensure that each financial literacy concept cited in the discussion is also linked back to original empirical or theoretical sources.

 

[3] Constructive Feedback and Actionable Suggestions

Major Suggestions:

1. Theory–Data Linkage (Pages 5–6): Strengthen the linkage between the theoretical framing (CLT, DPT) and the behavioral outcome measures. Explicitly map which behaviors are expected under each framework.
2. Endogeneity Concern (Page 10): Consider discussing the potential for reverse causality between MFS use and financial behavior, and clarify how temporal ordering in the survey mitigates this.
3. Interaction Effects (Pages 12–13): While interaction terms are present, their implications could be made more intuitive via graphical presentation or subgroup analysis.
4. Demographic Controls (Page 9): Although demographic controls are included, the implications of gender, income, or race differentials in MFS impact could be explored further.
5. Robustness Checks: Suggest including robustness checks using alternative categorizations of behaviors (e.g., PCA or index-based approaches).

Minor Suggestions:

• Terminology Consistency: Ensure consistent use of terms like "financial literacy dimensions" versus "constructs."
• Clarify Acronyms: The abstract's first use of OK, SK, and PA should be defined for clarity.
• Policy Implications: Consider separating behavioral policy insights (nudges) from structural ones (access equity) for more targeted discussion.
• Ethical Considerations: A brief discussion on data ethics in using large-scale behavioral datasets would enhance credibility.

 

Final Evaluation:

This manuscript is timely, methodologically rigorous, and theoretically informed. It makes a strong empirical and conceptual contribution to the intersection of digital finance and sustainability. While some major enhancements in framing and statistical presentation are recommended, they do not detract from the overall quality and publishability of the work.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with this version. So, it can be accepted now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

find attached the review report file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment

The revised manuscript, Digital Financial Services and Sustainable Financial Behavior: The Moderating Role of Financial Literacy Dimensions, has been substantially improved. The authors have carefully addressed the earlier concerns by strengthening theory–data linkage, clarifying methodological choices, visualizing interaction effects, and refining the policy implications. Overall, the revisions significantly enhance both the rigor and readability of the paper.

Specific Comments and Acknowledgments

1. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

• Comment: The explicit mapping of Construal Level Theory, Dual Process Theory, and Social Cognitive Theory to the behavioral outcomes is now much clearer. Each hypothesis is linked to theoretical mechanisms, which strengthens the conceptual foundation.
• Response to Authors: Thank you for elaborating on how each theory informs specific financial behaviors. This mapping greatly improves the coherence of the hypotheses.

2. Addressing Endogeneity

• Comment: Section 3.4 now acknowledges reverse causality and outlines mitigation strategies through demographic controls and robustness checks.
• Response to Authors: The transparency regarding limitations and the call for panel data in future research are commendable. This provides readers with confidence in the validity of the results despite the cross-sectional design.

3. Interaction Effects and the "Confidence Paradox"

• Comment: The addition of Appendix Figure A1 and subgroup analyses by age, gender, and income makes the moderating effects much more intuitive.
• Response to Authors: The visualization of the “confidence paradox” (protective effect of objective knowledge vs. risk amplification from perceived ability) is particularly effective in communicating complex moderation effects.

4. Demographic Subgroup Analysis

• Comment: The inclusion of subgroup analyses (Tables A3–A5) enriches the interpretation, showing meaningful variations across gender and income groups.
• Response to Authors: This addition makes the study more nuanced and relevant for equity-oriented policy design.

5. Robustness Checks

• Comment: The multiple robustness checks (alternative model specifications, weighted vs. unweighted analyses, multicollinearity diagnostics) are thorough.
• Response to Authors: Although PCA-based behavior categorization was not implemented, the extensive checks performed sufficiently establish confidence in the dual temporal pattern findings.

6. Abstract, Terminology, and Redundancy

• Comment: Acronyms are now defined upon first use, and terminology around “financial literacy dimensions” is consistent. Redundancies in the introduction have been streamlined.
• Response to Authors: These changes improve clarity and accessibility for readers.

7. Literature Review

• Comment: The revised literature review explicitly compares this study to Goyal et al. (2023) and partially to Han & Montalto (2021).
• Response to Authors: This positioning highlights the unique contributions of the study, though a fuller comparison with Han & Montalto would further strengthen the contextualization if accessible in future revisions.

8. Ethical Considerations

• Comment: Ethical aspects of using large-scale behavioral data have been acknowledged.
• Response to Authors: Including this dimension enhances the credibility of the work and aligns with current expectations in sustainability research.

9. Policy Implications

• Comment: The separation of behavioral vs. structural policy interventions (Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2) is clear and actionable.
• Response to Authors: This restructuring improves the practical relevance of the manuscript, offering distinct guidance to policymakers and educators.

10. Language and Presentation

• Comment: The comprehensive language editing is evident; the abstract and conclusion are more engaging and the manuscript reads more smoothly.
• Response to Authors: The improved readability increases the potential impact of the paper for both academic and policy audiences.

Final Note

The revisions convincingly address the earlier feedback. The manuscript now presents a well-argued, methodologically transparent, and practically relevant contribution to the literature on digital financial services, financial literacy, and sustainable financial behavior. Only minor copyediting may be required during production.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

find  attached  the file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf