Assessing Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction of Electric Utility Provider’s Online Payment System during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Structural Modeling Approach
, Charmine Sheena Saflor 1,*, Klint Allen Mariñas 1,2, Michael Nayat Young 2, Yogi Tri Prasetyo 2,3,4 and Satria Fadil Persada 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper model comprises 60 questionnaires with ten sections developed from the literature and distributed to 400 participants, which were analyzed using the structural equation modeling and path analysis technique. The topic is interesting and could offer insights for researchers and practitioners. Besides, the introduction of the research problem seems to be clearly. However, this paper has several concerns, which have been detailed below.
1. The logic in the literature review section is confusing. Please classify the relevant literature according to the research content of this paper, and explain the differences and connections between the existing research and this research.
2. What does the sentence -- “Based on the purpose of research, the type of research used is explanatory research.” mean?
3. What do tangibility, responsiveness, reliability, assurance, empathy, COVID-19-19 protocol, service quality, online payment security and customer satisfaction represent respectively?
4. Whether Figure 2 is redundant, please consider.
5. “The result of the questionnaire shows that among the 400 participants [27], 53.3 % were female, and 46.7 % were male. In terms of the age, 42.5% were between 18-29 years of age, 31.3% of were between 30-39, 13% were between 40 and 49 years, 11.3% were between 50-59, 1.25% were between 60-69, and 0.75% were 70 and above.” In this sentence, what is the relationship between the author's description and the survey results? Why is Reference 27 marked?
6. What are the specific steps from the Initial SEM to the Final SEM?
7. In the discussion section, the author only describes the research results of this paper, and the research results are consistent with or contrary to the existing research results, but the author does not explain the reasons, please add.
8. Please correct the format of references 3, 4, 8 and 26.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Good day! Thank you so much for all the valuable insights for the manuscript. Please find attached file for our response. The changes were also highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for the convenience.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting, and the researched problem has scientific potential. However, some problems need to be solved:
1. Literature review should include more recent sources (2018-2021) and be enriched with relevant references, including SERVQUAL model.
2. The authors must briefly present the steps of the research (possibly in a figure).
3. Table 3 and Table 4 must be moved to the Appendix.
4. In my opinion, a section of conclusions that includes theoretical and managerial implications, research limitations, and future research directions would be helpful.
The article has scientific value and can be published after carefully reviewing the reported issues.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Good day! Thank you so much for all the valuable insights for the manuscript. Please find attached file for our response. The changes were also highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for the convenience.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
