Pioneering Perception of Green Fintech in Promoting Sustainable Digital Services Application within Smart Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I appreciate the opportunity to review your insightful research paper on the impact of green Fintech on sustainability and consumer behavior within smart cities. While your paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the subject and is well-structured, I have several recommendations for further development and clarification to enhance the overall quality and impact of your work:
Literature Review: A more extensive review of the existing literature will provide a broader context for your research, emphasizing its unique contributions.
Data Analysis: A detailed description of the data coding and theme identification processes will improve transparency and replicability of your study.
Data Collection and Sampling: The methodology would benefit from further clarity, including:
Elucidation of the initial LinkedIn selection process.
Explanation of the verification process for individuals' expertise in green Fintech.
Details on the total number of potential participants contacted and the selection of the final participants.
Clarification of the criteria used to cease recruitment through the snowballing method.
Presentation of Data: Including detailed data or case studies, in the form of graphs or charts, will reinforce your research findings and enhance their real-world applicability.
Research Contribution: A clearer articulation of your paper's contributions to the existing body of knowledge on green Fintech will underscore its significance.
Acknowledgement of Limitations: Acknowledging and addressing your study's limitations will enhance the credibility of your research.
Practical Implications and Recommendations: Highlighting the practical implications for policy makers, industry practitioners, and consumers, along with specific, actionable recommendations will increase your research's impact.
Data Sources: Diversifying data sources, such as documents, reports, or reliable statistics, will enhance the validity of your findings.
Your research is a valuable contribution to the evolving discourse on the impact of green Fintech on sustainable practices within smart cities. I appreciate your dedication to this important topic and look forward to reviewing your future work.
Best Regards,
Author Response
Dear Sir
Thank you for your reviewing my paper, and I took your comments seriously to make the corrections.
Literature expanded by adding theoretical framework and Explanations added related to data analysis and collection. Research Contribution and of limitations have been added in the conclusion part. Also The current study only focused on using interviews to gather data due to limited scope and time for data collection.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is lacking on multiple counts.
1. There is no strong theoretical underpinning
2. The sample size is insignificant, and results cannot be generalized.
3. Discussion is weak and no linking back to theory or discussion with respect to results of similar studies.
4. Triangulation of the results is entirely missing.
4. unclear practical and theoretical implication of the study and weakly drawn conclusions.
The writing is inconsistent and there are grammatical and syntax errors.
Author Response
Dear Sir
Thank you for your reviewing my paper, and I took your comments seriously to make the corrections.
Theoretical framework added and Addressed limitation section as weakness of study. About result and sample size it is addressed by linking results to TAM theory in discussion. Finally, theoretical implication added clearly in Conclusion section.
Reviewer 3 Report
The title should be shortened to better reflect the purpose of the study.
Engage more with the literature. On average, about 40 sources/references are deemed sufficient.
Be specific in describing the sample - country of origin etc.
Explain why only eight respondents were interviewed - were data saturation reached? Explain.
Describe the limitations of the study. For example, the results cannot be generalized to a wider population.
Please consider a thorough language edit.
Author Response
Dear Sir
Thank you for your reviewing my paper, and I took your comments seriously to make the corrections.
Title has been shortened, Literature expanded by adding theoretical framework. Sources added to reach 40. Limitation of study added in conclusion section.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
While you have made significant progress in the right direction a few things are missing.
1. The robustness of methodology is not well established.
2. The results of qualitative study required triangulation by suing some form of secondary data or support from existing literature which is missing.
3. The discussion is still weak, and results need to be analyzed using one or more theoretical lens/es presented in theoretical underpinning/literature review section.
4. Conclusion must be restricted to the results of the study and implications arising out of that along with limitations of the study and scope of future research in that regard, it needs to be improved.
The English is good but there are some inconsistencies in write up. May be different authors have written different sections, and hence someone needs to take the responsibility to ensure consistency style and sentence structuring.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I'm happy to inform you that I've addressed your comments strictly in order to correct the paper. Thank you so much
- The robustness of methodology is not well established -Addressed by expanding the methodology to include data extracted from published sources.
- The results of qualitative study required triangulation by suing some form of secondary data or support from existing literature which is missing – Additional results presented in results section which were based on six primary studies sampled related to the topic.
- The discussion is still weak, and results need to be analyzed using one or more theoretical lens/es presented in theoretical underpinning/literature review section. – Discussion section adjusted to consider theoretical underpinnings
- Conclusion must be restricted to the results of the study and implications arising out of that along with limitations of the study and scope of future research in that regard, it needs to be improved. – Conclusion improved to address the comments.
