Determinants of FinTech Payment Services Adoption—An Empirical Study of Lithuanian Businesses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an exciting paper, well-grounded theoretically, rigorously executed methodologically, and structured effectively. However, there are issues that need to be addressed to improve the paper.

Abbreviation Clarity: Ensure that abbreviations such as UTAUT and UTAUT2 are introduced clearly at first mention and used consistently throughout the text.

A. The Abstract is well-written, displaying clarity and a logical structure, but you will need to adjust the restrictive reference to Lithuanian companies by implying the multiplier effect of the research at EU/Global level

Please correct:

Line 16:

• FinTech service providers (experts)
• Businesses that use FinTech (users)

Line 21: providers and users

Line 19: Please introduce the abbreviation “UTAUT2”

Lines 22, 23: Instead of the verb “provide” you should use the verb “encourage”.

B. Keywords: Instead of the keywords “adoption” and “UTAUT2” you should place the single keyword “Payment services adoption.”

C. Please adapt the text at the last paragraph of Section 1 (“Introduction”) to project correctly the rest of the manuscript as follows:

        Section 2 (“Materials and Methods”)

        Section 3 (“Results”)

        Section 4 (“Discussion”) and

        Section 5 (“Conclusions”)

D. In Section 2 (“Materials and Methods”) please correct the subsection title:

                    1.1. Theoretical framework

 E. In Section 1 (“Introduction”) the authors have clearly addressed the research gap; however, they are advised to further emphasize the novelty of the study in this section (“Introduction”) as well as in section 5 (“Conclusions”).

F. In Section 2 (“Materials and Methods”) and Section 4 (“Discussion”):

Each of the nine hypotheses (H1..H9) needs to be further developed and better reasoning based on clear conceptual definitions and supported by relevant research findings. The reasoning (which forms the basis of each of the nine hypotheses) behind the relationships between the concepts has not been adequately explained.

G. In section 3 (“Results”), please correct the subsection headings to

            3.1. Results of Experts Interviews

            3.2. Results of the business survey

H. In section 5 (“Conclusions”), the conclusion appears fragmented, and the reasoning needs improvement to ensure coherence with the assumptions and hypotheses presented in section 2 and discussed in section 4.

I. Please move Table 4 and the relative reasoning from section 5 (“Conclusions”) to section 4 (“Discussion”).

J. In section 5 (“Conclusions”), the subsection’s headings 5.2.1. (…for FinTech service providers) and 5.2.2. (…for businesses using FinTech services) must be removed.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary and Key Contributions – This paper addresses a relevant and timely research gap by exploring the determinants of FinTech payment services adoption from a business-to-business perspective in Lithuania, a market that has been largely under-researched. A key strength of the paper is its use of a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative insights from expert interviews with a quantitative survey. The theoretical foundation, an extended UTAUT2 model tailored to the FinTech context, is a solid framework for the analysis. The findings offer a valuable contribution to the FinTech adoption literature by providing insights from both the supply and demand sides of the market.

 

Evaluation of Methodology, Analyses, and Conclusion – The methodology, while innovative in its mixed-method design, requires significant clarification to meet academic standards. A detailed description of the data is needed, including descriptive statistics for all variables, as this is currently missing. The mathematical formulas for the metrics and the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach should be explicitly explained to ensure reproducibility.

The analysis is impacted by the limitations of the sample. The sample size of 104 Lithuanian businesses, while technically sufficient for a specific sub-population, makes the claim of generalizability to the broader business community an overstatement in the paper's conclusion. The authors should temper this claim and explicitly discuss potential biases, such as the overrepresentation of businesses from Vilnius. The analysis also lacks a deep integration of the qualitative and quantitative findings, as the Discussion section does not fully synthesize the expert interviews with the survey results. Furthermore, the omission of a core UTAUT2 construct, 'Hedonic Motivation,' as discussed in the results, requires a more robust theoretical explanation rather than just a statistical justification. Finally, the paper's conclusion should reflect a more nuanced interpretation of the findings in light of these methodological and analytical limitations.

 

Feedback and Recommendations – Based on my evaluation, I believe this paper has significant potential but requires substantial revisions to improve its rigor and clarity. I recommend that the authors address the following points:

Major Revisions

• Provide a more detailed and transparent description of the data, including a table of descriptive statistics. Explicitly state the mathematical formulas for all metrics and clearly explain the SEM approach used. This will help readers understand the constructs and validate the statistical model.
• Explicitly discuss the limitations of the sample size and the potential for geographic bias. Temper the claims of generalizability in the conclusion. Aligning the conclusions with the limitations of the data is essential for maintaining the credibility of the findings.
• Provide a more in-depth theoretical discussion on why this core UTAUT2 construct was found to be insignificant in this context, as referenced in the analysis. The authors could either propose a literature-based reason for its irrelevance in a business context or offer an alternative explanation for the low reliability.
• Enhance the Discussion section to directly compare and synthesize the findings from the expert interviews and the user survey. A more thorough synthesis would involve a discussion of whether the qualitative findings supported, contradicted, or expanded upon the quantitative results.

Present a clear and complete list of all hypotheses derived from the UTAUT2 model, as introduced in the methodology section. This is essential for the reader to understand the full scope of the research and the theoretical model being teste

Minor Revisions

• Figure 1 and 2: Add a table defining the measurement items (e.g., PE1, PE2) earlier in the document for better clarity.

 

Conclusion – This paper is not ready for publication in its current form. The revisions requested are substantial and necessary to improve the methodological rigor and clarity of the paper. I therefore recommend that the paper be returned to the authors for major revisions. The primary concerns relate to the need for a more explicit discussion of limitations, a deeper integration of the mixed-method findings, and a full, transparent presentation of the methodology and hypotheses.

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

Thank you for your interesting and well-written paper. It was a pleasure to read it. The topic is relevant, especially in the context of growing interest in FinTech services. Your mixed-method approach, combining expert interviews and a business survey, is a strong point of the study.

The use of the UTAUT2 model is a good choice and is explained clearly. The data analysis is done properly, and the results are easy to follow. The paper gives useful insights for both researchers and practitioners.

However, I have a few suggestions to improve the paper:
-Please explain better what is new about your study. The model is known, so the originality should be clearer.
- You removed the "hedonic motivation" factor. It would help if you could discuss this limitation more in the methodology or discussion.
- Try to connect your results more with findings from other countries or similar studies.
- The conclusion is a bit too long. Consider making it more focused on the key findings and recommendations.

Overall, this is a solid paper with good structure and relevant results. With some small revisions, it can make a strong contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All mentioned issues has been addressed.

 Thank you! 

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comments, and the updated version of the paper is ready for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you very much.