Demystification of Readiness, Security, and Technological Enhancements in the Adoption of a Cashless Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The topic is interesting; however, it should be improved by addressing the following issues:

Major comments:

1.       Title and Abstract:

·         A more concise and focused title could be: "Readiness, Security and Technological Enhancements in the Adoption of a Cashless Economy: Perspectives from Brunei Darussalam".

·         The description of the methodology is somewhat vague. The abstract should briefly mention the sample size and the main instruments used in the survey.

·         It should clarify the type of secondary data sources (e.g., government reports, industry publications).

·         The findings are mentioned, but the abstract should be more specific about the implications of these findings for policymakers and stakeholders.

·         The term "Quantitative approach" should be described more precisely, potentially including the statistical methods or analyses used.

·         The mention of the "technology acceptance model and technology readiness index" is good, but a brief explanation of why these models are relevant or how they integrate would be helpful.

·         The abstract should flow logically from the background to the research aim, methodology, findings, and implications without abrupt transitions.

 

2.       Introduction

·         Introduce the concept of a cashless economy, its growing importance globally, and the specific context within Brunei Darussalam.

·         Discuss the role of technological advancements in the financial sector and their impact on the shift towards cashless transactions.

·         Explain Brunei's strategic initiatives such as the Digital Economy Masterplan 2025 and the Smart Nation vision under Wawasan Brunei 2035.

·         Highlight how the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of cashless payments and the subsequent changes in consumer behavior.

·         Clearly state the problem being addressed, the gaps in existing research, and the significance of examining the readiness and acceptance of a cashless economy among the working society in Brunei.

·         Briefly introduce the Technology Acceptance Model and Technology Readiness Index as the theoretical framework guiding the study and state the key hypotheses or research questions.

 

3.       Literature Review

·         Instead of just summarizing past studies, there should be a critical analysis of the literature, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the existing research.

·         Clearly connect the literature review to the specific research questions or hypotheses of the study. This helps in justifying the study's relevance and positioning it within the existing body of knowledge.

·         Provide a broader context of the global shift towards cashless economies, discussing key drivers and inhibitors in various regions.

·         Discuss the historical development of cashless payment systems, citing seminal works and major milestones.

·         Detail the technological advancements that have facilitated the move towards cashless societies, including innovations in digital payment systems and mobile banking.

·         Impact of COVID-19 on Cashless Economy:

·         Provide a comprehensive review of how the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of cashless payments globally. Discuss both positive impacts and potential drawbacks, citing relevant studies.

·         Elaborate on the theoretical models used in the study, such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Technology Readiness Index (TRI). Discuss their components, historical development, and relevance to the research.

·         Current Trends and Future Directions:

·         Summarize current trends in cashless payments and predict future directions based on the reviewed literature. Highlight areas where further research is needed.

 

4.       Research Methodology

·         Clearly state the chosen research design (e.g., descriptive, exploratory, causal) and justify why it is appropriate for this study.

·         The method for collecting secondary data is not well detailed. Explain how secondary data sources were selected and evaluated.

·         More detail on sampling techniques, such as stratified sampling or random sampling, and how participants were recruited.

·         Discuss the response rate (221 out of how many distributed) and how it impacts the study's reliability and validity.

·         Clearly define independent and dependent variables. Ensure the discussion on examining relationships between variables is coherent and directly tied to the research questions.

·         Explain why SPSS and SmartPLS were chosen for data analysis. Describe their relevance to the study’s objectives.

·         Justify the chosen population size (N=221) and why it is deemed representative of the Brunei working population.

·         Discuss potential biases in the population sample and how they were mitigated.

·         Detail the probability sampling method used. Explain steps taken to ensure random sampling and how ethical considerations were managed.

·         Elaborate on why a sample size of 212 is statistically sufficient for the study.

·         Clarify the rationale behind the chosen Likert scale. Ensure questions are clearly linked to research objectives.

·         Discuss pre-testing and validation of survey questions. Mention any pilot studies or expert reviews conducted to refine the survey instrument.

·         Provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical techniques used (e.g., types of regression analysis, significance testing).

·         Specify the outcomes of the pilot test and any changes made to the survey based on feedback.

·         Specify what measures of central tendency and dispersion were used (mean, median, mode, standard deviation).

·         Ensure that tables and figures are clear and well-integrated into the text.

·         Provide more detail on the factor analysis, validity (construct, convergent, discriminant), and reliability measures. Explain why specific thresholds (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) were chosen.

·         Elaborate on composite reliability and provide more in-depth discussion on validity types. Explain the steps taken to ensure robust measurement models.

·         Clearly explain the structural model assessment process. Discuss multicollinearity, path coefficients, and other relevant metrics in detail.

·         Explain the bootstrapping process and why it is used.

 

5.       Data Analysis

·         The authors undertake a rigorous assessment of the measurement model, employing PLS-SEM techniques. However, there is a need for a more explicit introduction to these methods to aid readers unfamiliar with PLS-SEM.

·         Address the methodological approach more comprehensively, ensuring clarity in the justification for choosing PLS-SEM over other structural equation modeling techniques and detailing its appropriateness for the study's objectives.

·         While reliability (Cronbach's Alpha and composite reliability) and validity (convergent and discriminant) are evaluated, discrepancies in reporting and interpretation need attention. Ensure consistency in reporting reliability coefficients across constructs.

·         Discuss implications of reliability issues, particularly in constructs like "Insecurity," to provide a balanced view of measurement robustness.

·         The structural model analysis is thorough, highlighting significant path coefficients and their implications effectively. However, improve clarity in the presentation and interpretation of findings to enhance reader understanding.

·         Ensure each path coefficient's significance and directionality are explicitly stated and tied back to the study's hypotheses or research questions.

·         Clearly articulate the hypotheses tested and provide a succinct summary of results in a dedicated table format. This will aid in quickly grasping the study's empirical support for its hypotheses.

·         Discuss unexpected findings or deviations from prior literature, offering insights into potential reasons and implications for future research.

·         Strengthen the integration of findings with the study's overarching research questions or hypotheses. Emphasize how each statistical result contributes to the broader understanding of cashless economy issues, readiness, security, and technology enhancement in society.

·         Synthesize the implications of findings across Part I and Part II, providing a cohesive narrative that underscores the study's contributions to theory, practice, and policy.

·         Consider including a section at the end of the section that critically evaluates the study's limitations and suggests avenues for future research. This will enhance the article's scholarly rigor and contribute to ongoing academic discourse.

·         Conclude the Data Analysis section with a robust discussion on the practical implications of findings. How can these results inform policymakers, industry practitioners, and researchers in advancing cashless economy initiatives?

 

6.       Discussion

·         The section would benefit from clearer organization and subheadings to delineate different thematic discussions, such as major findings, influencing factors, and managerial implications. This would improve readability and help readers navigate through complex discussions more effectively.

·         The discussion adequately summarizes key findings related to optimism, perceived ease of use (PEOU), perceived usefulness (PU), and their impacts on technology acceptance. However, the interpretation occasionally lacks depth in explaining why certain relationships were significant or insignificant.

·         Provide a more nuanced interpretation of the hypothesis testing results (Table 21) by discussing potential reasons for both supported and unsupported hypotheses. For instance, elaborate on why optimism's impact on perceived usefulness was found to be insignificant despite expectations based on previous literature.

·         While the section mentions alignment with studies by Erdoğmu & Esen (2011) and Sohaib et al. (2020), a deeper comparison with a broader range of relevant literature would strengthen the discussion. Consider discussing contrasting findings from other studies and hypothesizing reasons for discrepancies.

·         Ensure consistency in referencing literature throughout the discussion to provide a robust theoretical foundation for the study's findings.

·         Expand on the theoretical implications of the findings for understanding technology acceptance in the context of cashless economies. Discuss how the study contributes to existing theories of technology acceptance and innovation diffusion.

·         Link theoretical insights derived from the study to broader sociotechnical perspectives, considering how societal factors (e.g., pandemic impacts, security concerns) influence technology adoption behaviors.

·         The discussion touches on managerial implications related to enhancing consumer assurance and awareness in cashless payments. Strengthen this by proposing specific strategies for policymakers, financial institutions, and service providers to address identified barriers (e.g., discomfort, insecurity).

·         Provide concrete recommendations backed by empirical findings on how organizations can mitigate perceived risks and enhance user trust in cashless transactions.

·         Explicitly discuss the limitations of the study, such as sample biases or methodological constraints, and their implications for interpreting findings. This transparency enhances the study's credibility and provides context for future research directions.

·         Propose specific avenues for future research that build upon the current study's findings, addressing unresolved questions or extending the investigation to different demographic or geographic contexts.

·         Conclude the Discussion section by summarizing the key insights derived from the study and their implications for advancing understanding of cashless economy issues. Emphasize the study's contribution to both academic knowledge and practical applications.

 

7.       Conclusions and Recommendations

·         Provide clearer definitions and operationalizations of each component within the framework (e.g., consumer acceptance, governance, technology systems). This enhances the framework's utility as a practical guide for policymakers and industry stakeholders.

·         Ensure that each component of the framework aligns with empirical findings from the study. Discuss how specific aspects of the framework are supported by the study's data or literature review.

·         Emphasize the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders (e.g., government agencies, financial institutions, consumers) in implementing the framework. Highlight collaborative efforts needed to overcome barriers and sustain momentum towards a cashless economy.

·         Propose future research directions that build upon the current study's findings and framework. Consider exploring longitudinal trends in cashless adoption, comparative studies across different demographic groups, or the impact of emerging technologies (e.g., blockchain, AI) on cashless payment ecosystems.

 

·         Conclude with a succinct summary of how the proposed framework can support Brunei's digital transformation goals, aligning with the Smart Nation Agenda for 2025. Discuss policy implications and recommendations for policymakers based on the study's findings and the proposed framework.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

::..  Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have improved the paper as suggested. We have improved this section and they lead us to improve the paper significantly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Demystifying of Cashless Economy Issues: The Readiness, Security and Technology Enhancement of Working Society” is an interesting study on the perceptions of workers in Brunei on cashless payments.  The first word in the title, is misspelled and there are several minor issues and points that need to be clarified.  However, the research overall is interesting. In particular, in contradicts other studies in that it found that discomfort and insecurity do not significantly impact perceived usefulness or ease of use. This unique finding makes an important contribution to the literature. It would be interesting to know if the difference was due to experience with cashless payments during covid or a unique societal difference in Brunei. 

 

A few issues that should be addressed include the following:

 

On line 43 the authors state that cashless society “does not mean total exclusion of cash.”  However, on 79 the paper state the study is focused on the perspectives of a “fully cashless economy in Brunei.”  These are in contradiction. 

 

It would be useful to explain the Smart Nation initiative for Wawasan Brunei 2035.

 

On page 8, it is important to explain how the recipients of the survey were selected.  Similarly, page 8 states that there were 221 responses but page 14 states that there were only 219 responses.  This discrepancy needs to be explained.

 

Overall it is an interesting paper and will be a valuable article after a few revisions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper has multiple typos including inconsistent capitalization.  A few examples include a comma followed by a capitalized T in the on line 9.  Capitalization of Quantitative on line 13, on line 16-17 “provides” should be “provide”.  Similar issues persist throughout the paper but could be addressed with a careful proofread.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

::..  Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have improved the paper especially in the related with the sections. We have improved this section and they lead us to significantly improve the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The changes were not adequately addressed. Also, the structure of the paper does not meet the journal's guidelines. The document should have more detail in the methodological, thematic, and presentation to improve understanding of the findings and conclusions. Given the above, I suggest that the document must be revised in depth.

Author Response

::..  Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed feedback and for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We understand the importance of adhering to the journal's guidelines and have made comprehensive revisions to address the issues you raised. Below, we provide a detailed summary of the improvements made, with specific attention to methodological, thematic, and presentation aspects. We have highlighted these changes in yellow in the revised manuscript for easy reference.

1. Methodological Enhancements:

• Measurement Model Assessment: We have elaborated on the measurement model assessment by providing a detailed explanation of construct validity and Cronbach's Alpha. This includes a thorough description of our use of SPSS and PLS-SEM through SmartPLS V4.0. We have referenced recent literature, such as Zamil et al. (2022), to justify our choice of PLS-SEM, particularly for addressing complex modeling issues and non-normal data distributions. These revisions are highlighted in yellow.
• Methodological Justification: The justification for our methodological choices has been expanded. We now provide a clearer rationale for selecting PLS-SEM over other techniques and explain how it aligns with our study’s objectives. These additions are also highlighted in yellow.

 

2. Thematic Structure Improvements:

• Framework for Cashless Economy: We have restructured the paper to include a clearer and more detailed framework for understanding the cashless economy. This includes explicit definitions and operationalizations of key concepts such as consumer acceptance, governance, and technology systems. The revised thematic structure is highlighted in yellow.
• Enhanced Thematic Analysis: We have refined the thematic analysis to better align with the journal’s guidelines. Additional sub-sections and detailed explanations have been included to improve the logical flow and presentation of our findings. These changes are highlighted in yellow.

 

3. Presentation and Detail Enhancements:

• Improved Presentation: The presentation of our findings has been revised to meet the journal's formatting requirements. This includes updated tables and figures that more clearly convey the results and their implications. The revised presentation is highlighted in yellow.
• Detailed Findings Discussion: We have expanded the discussion section to include a more detailed analysis of the results, with a nuanced interpretation of the hypothesis testing outcomes. We have also provided a thorough comparison with existing literature to better contextualize our findings. These additions are highlighted in yellow.
• Clearer Conclusions: The conclusions have been strengthened to clearly summarize the key insights, implications, and contributions of our study. We have addressed how our findings align with or diverge from previous research and included specific recommendations based on the improved analysis. The revised conclusions are highlighted in yellow.

We have highlighted all the changes in yellow in the revised manuscript to facilitate your review. We believe these revisions address the concerns raised and significantly improve the clarity and depth of the paper. The updated manuscript is attached for your consideration.

Thank you for your continued guidance and for considering our revised manuscript.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the document according to the comments. I suggest that the paper can be published.