Exploring Transaction Security on Consumers’ Willingness to Use Mobile Payment by Using the Technology Acceptance Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I transmit a great deal of appreciation into the coffers of the authors for taking up their pens for this topic.

Along with the points of appreciation, the authors need to consider the improvement of the article suggested as follows,

1.     The article's title can be revised as a simple one for the readers to understand easily. While revising, please consider it should attract a wide number of audiences.

2.     The aim of the study can be mentioned in the second sentence of the abstract.

3.     There is a grammar mistake in line no 21(mobile payment tool make consumers feel).

4.     Hypotheses can be moved to appropriate literature review (sub)sections. This move will give better substantiation for the reasons for deriving them.

5.     Though the study has novelty, it misses mentioning it. Please consider mentioning the same in the last part of the Introduction.

6.     Whether Figure 2 is a research framework or conceptual framework? It seems it is a conceptual framework. Please change it to a conceptual framework or draw a new research framework.

7.     It seems that the first three paragraphs of the conclusion are like discussion. Those paragraphs are not related to conclusion. The discussion section can be added before the conclusion, and those paragraphs can be moved to the discussion section. Additional points related to the discussion can also be included.

8.     In the conclusions section, I recommend that the authors must deal conclusion with the study’s outstanding findings.

9.     Recommendations for future research can be explained a little more.

10.  There are grammar and sentence errors. The paper needs complete language polishing/corrections from a native speaker of English or a professional English langue editor.

11.  The citations older than 2010 may be replaced by new ones.

12.  The authors can include the following citations & references that are more related to the present research.

·       Al-Mamoorey, M. A., & Al-Rubaye, M. M. M. (2020). The role of electronic payment systems in Iraq in reducing banking risks: An empirical research on private banks. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 49-59. doi:10.17512/pjms.2020.21.2.04

·       Nguyen, H. T., & Nguyen, N. T. (2022). IDENTIFYING THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR IN SWITCHING TO E-WALLETS IN PAYMENT ACTIVITIES. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 25(1), 292-311. doi:10.17512/pjms.2022.25.1.18

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting article with great potential. 

However, it seems to me that the SEM formula (307) and Sobel's validation (475-478) are not necessary.

The results presented in the article are very intertsing and the presented questions from the questionnaire allow duplication of the primary research  in a geographically different market. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors aimed to investigate the, “Exploring transaction security’s mediating effect on consumers' willingness to use mobile payment by using technology acceptance model”.

Overall, the manuscript is well written in all sections of the manuscript, followed by sound methods with results from wide study settings. The study is meaningful in the current situation and context. The technology acceptance model is not a novel phenomenon, however, authors have used this very innovatively by exploring an under researched area. Moreover, I would like to provide the following comments and suggestions being considered before being accepted for publication. 

·        I suggest authors mention the total number of study subjects as well in addition to study design.

·        The result should be a bit more clear to the reader.

·        Could authors justify technology acceptance model use in this research

·        Conclusions should be added in the abstract. 

·        In the introduction part, I would like to suggest authors add some related literature for some other models if available.

·        Results are expected to be a bit more clear to the reader. Could authors re-write the results section of the paper. 

·        In the discussion section, authors should highlight the strengths of the study while limitations should be extended more precisely noting down biases associated with.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This study endeavors to determine whether mobile transaction security can have an impact on consumers' willingness to use mobile payment via TAM. By applying structural equation model, this study found that mediating role of transaction security at mobile payment is positively significant. It was also found that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness have significant positive impact on consumer's adoption of mobile payment. This is an interesting study which couples the structural equation to revisit the consumer behavior with mobile payment system. In general, I  find this study is innovative and very interesting, but I have some comments that the authors may wish to consider in a possible revision of the article:

1. One more keyword "structural equation method' could be added to the existing keywords. 

2. Authors should revise the abstract as there are many typos and the read may face difficulties to link up the findings. 

3. Policy recommendations: Specific policy recommendations should be put forward according to the empirical findings.

4. There is an intermingle of capital and small letters. Please avoid this practice in scientific writing.

5. Finally, the manuscript can be benefited if the authors thoroughly proofread it in terms of English language mistakes and syntax structure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is observed that the authors have carried out some of my comments, and some of them have not. Please see the details below, 

Comment Number 6

There are differences between Research Framework and Conceptual Framework. The authors misunderstood it.  For instance, the research framework provides a general representation of relationships between things in a given phenomenon. On the other hand, the conceptual framework embodies the specific direction by which the research will have to be undertaken. So, it seems Figure 2 represents the Conceptual Framework, not the Research Framework. 

Comment Number 7 is not carried out as mentioned by the authors. The first three paragraphs are neither deleted nor included in separate sections for discussion. Please make a separate section for Discussion and write as suggested. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf