Sustaining Consumer E-Commerce Adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa: Do Trust and Payment Method Matter?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although this study appears to be well -structured and well -written, its effectiveness and impact on the parties involved are unclear. This study will be more meaningful if the effects and benefits can be seen, not just testing from a theoretical point of view only.

Author Response

Although this study appears to be well -structured and well -written, its effectiveness and impact on the parties involved are unclear. This study will be more meaningful if the effects and benefits can be seen, not just testing from a theoretical point of view only.

 

Response: Thank you for the suggestions. We have modified the manuscript to make the contribution of the study much clearer. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper intends to investigate the psychological drivers of e-commerce adoption with an emphasis on the mediating and moderating roles of trust and payment methods. My comments are as the following:

Motivation

It was stated in the “Abstract” that “most studies focus principally on the technological drivers of e-commerce adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa. Consequently, this study investigates the determinants of consumer e-commerce adoption in Ghana” (Lines 14-16). Although this statement highlights the contribution of this article as advancing our understanding of the non-technological drivers of e-commerce in Ghana, the statement in the “Introduction”, however, provides much weaker statement by saying that “research focuses on both technological and non-technological factors which have long run sustainable implications for consumers in the decision to accept and adopt e-commerce in sub-Saharan Africa” (Lines 36-38).

Two problems need to be fixed here. The first problem is that the authors need to provide a couple of previous studies supporting this statement, both for the technological and non-technological factors. The second problem is this argument is obviously in contrast to what made in the “Abstract”.

Materials and Methods

I would suggest deleting “3.3 Model Specification and Analysis” since this section is only a repetition of the hypothesis and the conceptual framework described in details in Section 2.

According to Table 2, the survey questionnaire was made up of seven constructs: SI (7 items), EE (3 items), PE (6 items), FC (5 items), TR (7 items), AD (5 325 items), and PM (3 items). The authors need to present in details the survey questionnaire, i.e., each question asked to the respondents. For examples, what are the 7 questions asked to measure the social influence construct? Similarly, what are the 3 questions asked to measure EE, and etc.

Goodness of fit indicators for the SEMs include: Chi-Square, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR. Rather than using the R-squares, the goodness of fit indicators need to reported to validate the SEM analysis.

In the paragraph above Figure 2, it was stated that “Theoretically, these models show adjusted R2 values of above 0.5 to substantiate the fact that hate models explain more than 50% of the variations in the estimated relationships.” What is the “hate models” referred in this sentence? This term appeared only once in this article.

Author Response

This paper intends to investigate the psychological drivers of e-commerce adoption with an emphasis on the mediating and moderating roles of trust and payment methods. My comments are as the following:

Motivation

It was stated in the “Abstract” that “most studies focus principally on the technological drivers of e-commerce adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa. Consequently, this study investigates the determinants of consumer e-commerce adoption in Ghana” (Lines 14-16). Although this statement highlights the contribution of this article as advancing our understanding of the non-technological drivers of e-commerce in Ghana, the statement in the “Introduction”, however, provides much weaker statement by saying that “research focuses on both technological and non-technological factors which have long run sustainable implications for consumers in the decision to accept and adopt e-commerce in sub-Saharan Africa” (Lines 36-38).

Response: This section has been modified to reflect the research gap precisely.

Two problems need to be fixed here. The first problem is that the authors need to provide a couple of previous studies supporting this statement, both for the technological and non-technological factors. The second problem is this argument is obviously in contrast to what made in the “Abstract”.

Response: Thank you for the suggestions, we have improved the manuscript to make it easier to read and understand.

Materials and Methods

I would suggest deleting “3.3 Model Specification and Analysis” since this section is only a repetition of the hypothesis and the conceptual framework described in details in Section 2.

Response: We have deleted the former table 3. Therefore, this section is streamlined to minimize repetition.

According to Table 2, the survey questionnaire was made up of seven constructs: SI (7 items), EE (3 items), PE (6 items), FC (5 items), TR (7 items), AD (5 325 items), and PM (3 items). The authors need to present in details the survey questionnaire, i.e., each question asked to the respondents. For examples, what are the 7 questions asked to measure the social influence construct? Similarly, what are the 3 questions asked to measure EE, and etc.

Response: This section has been modified. Kindly see table 2. We have added the main components of each construct and the number of questions generated from each component.

Goodness of fit indicators for the SEMs include: Chi-Square, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR. Rather than using the R-squares, the goodness of fit indicators needs to reported to validate the SEM analysis.

Response: Kindly see table 7. We have provided these tests to support the robustness of our study instead of the adjusted R-Square.

In the paragraph above Figure 2, it was stated that “Theoretically, these models show adjusted R2 values of above 0.5 to substantiate the fact that hate models explain more than 50% of the variations in the estimated relationships.” What is the “hate models” referred in this sentence? This term appeared only once in this article.

Response: Thank you for the suggestions. We have modified the manuscript and employed a different measure for the robustness. Kindly see table 9.

Reviewer 3 Report

1) It is necessary to bring more clarity in Abstract. Please Revise.

 

2) Sustainability is the main theme of the paper. Please deliberate and synthesis about the sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa in detail

 

3) The introduction section needs more clarity about the need, justification, research questions and objectives of study.

 

4) Please deliberate the literature review in the form of synthesis of existing studies and research gaps for the study.

 

5) Please explain the process and significance of your hypothesis development.

 

6) Methodology section must also deliberate on the research type, research design, sampling techniques with design, and data collection for the study in detail.

 

7) Please describe the interpretations of analysis tables in detail

 

8) Discussions can be relative and extended in the context of current research in the domain.

 

9) The section of Findings and suggestions needs to be incorporated in more detail

 

10) Co0nclusion and future research should be more clear and practical. Please revise in the context of study.

 

11) Please check the English of the paper with expert

Author Response

1) It is necessary to bring more clarity in Abstract. Please Revise.

 Response: Thank you, we have revised the abstract. There is much clarity in this section now.

 

2) Sustainability is the main theme of the paper. Please deliberate and synthesis about the sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa in detail

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript to reflect the sustainability aspect of the study

 

3) The introduction section needs more clarity about the need, justification, research questions and objectives of study.

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

4) Please deliberate the literature review in the form of synthesis of existing studies and research gaps for the study.

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

5) Please explain the process and significance of your hypothesis development.

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

6) Methodology section must also deliberate on the research type, research design, sampling techniques with design, and data collection for the study in detail.

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

7) Please describe the interpretations of analysis tables in detail

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

8) Discussions can be relative and extended in the context of current research in the domain.

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

9) The section of Findings and suggestions needs to be incorporated in more detail

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

10) Conclusion and future research should be clearer and more practical. Please revise in the context of study.

 Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

11) Please check the English of the paper with expert

Response Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have used Grammarly to check for grammatical errors.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Abstract.

Abstract must be containing: purpose of the research, method of the research, value/novelty and conclusion.

2. Introduction section.

Explain the context of the study and state the precise objective

An Introduction should contain the following three parts:

- Background: Authors have to make clear what the context is. Ideally, authors should give an idea of the state-of-the art of the field the report is about.

- The Problem: If there was no problem, there would be no reason for writing a manuscript, and definitely no reason for reading it.

So, please tell readers why they should proceed reading. Experience shows that for this part a few lines are often sufficient.

- The Proposed Solution: Now and only now! – Author’s may outline the contribution of the manuscript. Here authors have to make sure readers point out what are the novel aspects of authors' work. Authors should place the paper in proper context by citing relevant papers. Especially UTAUT recent papers

3. Literature review.

In this session the author have to explain all of the information related to this study especially about trust. Remember, paper you made not for the dummies, it’s mean you need to explain what the main of information you have to explain.  The references used in the paper must be recent, accurate, and relevant to your topic. The authors are also suggested to follow proper citation techniques such as paraphrasing or quotation, if necessary. Please be careful with direct citations, which may lead to the act of plagiarism.

4. Method.

In this session author have to explain step by step how the method can solve the problems, you have to explain why you choose this method to solve your problems research.

3. Results and Discussion.

The presentation of results should be simple and straightforward in style. This section reports the most important findings, including results analyses as appropriate and comparisons to other research results. This section should be supported suitable references.

Edit your table so make it easy for readers

4. Conclusion.

Your conclusion should make your readers glad they read your paper. Summarize sentences the primary outcomes of the study in a paragraph 

5. References and Citations.

We usually expect a minimum of 20 to 30 references primarily to recent journal papers for research/original paper and review paper, respectively.

6. Paragraph.

A paragraph is a sentence or group of sentences that support one main idea. Many authors have presented paragraphs in very long terms. Authors should use simple sentences which are grammatically correct, but too many can make your writing less interesting.

Every paragraph in a paper should be:

- Unified: All of the sentences in a single paragraph should be related to a single controlling idea (often expressed in the topic sentence of the paragraph).

- Clear: The sentences should all refer to the central idea of the paper.

- Coherent: The sentences should be arranged in a logical manner and should follow a definite plan for development.

- Well-developed: Every idea discussed in the paragraph should be adequately explained and supported through evidence and details that work together to explain the paragraph’s controlling idea.

Author Response

1. Abstract.

Abstract must be containing: purpose of the research, method of the research, value/novelty and conclusion.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

2. Introduction section.

Explain the context of the study and state the precise objective

An Introduction should contain the following three parts:

- Background: Authors have to make clear what the context is. Ideally, authors should give an idea of the state-of-the art of the field the report is about.

- The Problem: If there was no problem, there would be no reason for writing a manuscript, and definitely no reason for reading it.

So, please tell readers why they should proceed reading. Experience shows that for this part a few lines are often sufficient.

- The Proposed Solution: Now and only now! – Author’s may outline the contribution of the manuscript. Here authors have to make sure readers point out what are the novel aspects of authors' work. Authors should place the paper in proper context by citing relevant papers. Especially UTAUT recent papers

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. The modified version contains the background, problem, objectives, research questions, outcome and contributions.

 

3. Literature review.

In this session the author have to explain all of the information related to this study especially about trust. Remember, paper you made not for the dummies, it’s mean you need to explain what the main of information you have to explain.  The references used in the paper must be recent, accurate, and relevant to your topic. The authors are also suggested to follow proper citation techniques such as paraphrasing or quotation, if necessary. Please be careful with direct citations, which may lead to the act of plagiarism.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

 

 

4. Method.

In this session author have to explain step by step how the method can solve the problems, you have to explain why you choose this method to solve your problems research.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have substantially modified this section to ensure coherence.

 

3. Results and Discussion.

The presentation of results should be simple and straightforward in style. This section reports the most important findings, including results analyses as appropriate and comparisons to other research results. This section should be supported suitable references.

Edit your table so make it easy for readers

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

4. Conclusion.

Your conclusion should make your readers glad they read your paper. Summarize sentences the primary outcomes of the study in a paragraph 

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

5. References and Citations.

We usually expect a minimum of 20 to 30 references primarily to recent journal papers for research/original paper and review paper, respectively.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. Except for the base articles, all the paper cited are from high ranked peer reviewed journals and the works are current.

 

6. Paragraph.

A paragraph is a sentence or group of sentences that support one main idea. Many authors have presented paragraphs in very long terms. Authors should use simple sentences which are grammatically correct, but too many can make your writing less interesting.

Every paragraph in a paper should be:

- Unified: All of the sentences in a single paragraph should be related to a single controlling idea (often expressed in the topic sentence of the paragraph).

- Clear: The sentences should all refer to the central idea of the paper.

- Coherent: The sentences should be arranged in a logical manner and should follow a definite plan for development.

- Well-developed: Every idea discussed in the paragraph should be adequately explained and supported through evidence and details that work together to explain the paragraph’s controlling idea.

 

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this issue. We have modified the manuscript.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author(s) have responded to some of my comments in this round of revision. However, there are still problems to be fixed. My comments are as the following:

(Lines 408-410) “Per the results on the cross-factor loadings, all the various elements in the constructs loaded above 7.00 to indicate that the elements are justified to be included as a part of the constructs.” -> 7.00 is a typo, factor loadings should be ranged from 0 to 1.

(Lines 410-411) “Consequently, none of the elements are eliminated. Again, the AVE indicates values above 0.500 to support…” -> I did not find AVE in Table 3.

The author did not respond to one of my previous comments: According to Table 2, the survey questionnaire was made up of seven constructs: SI (7 items), EE (3 items), PE (6 items), FC (5 items), TR (7 items), AD (5 325 items), and PM (3 items). The authors need to present in details the survey questionnaire, i.e., each question asked to the respondents. For examples, what are the 7 questions asked to measure the social influence construct? Similarly, what are the 3 questions asked to measure EE, and etc.

What is required is to list all the questions (items) instead of “components” which are too sketchy to judge if the questions (items) are appropriate to measure each of the psychological constructs.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 second round

The author(s) have responded to some of my comments in this round of revision. However, there are still problems to be fixed. My comments are as the following:

Response: Thank you for positive evaluation of our modifications.

(Lines 408-410) “Per the results on the cross-factor loadings, all the various elements in the constructs loaded above 7.00 to indicate that the elements are justified to be included as a part of the constructs.” -> 7.00 is a typo, factor loadings should be ranged from 0 to 1.

Response: Sorry for the misrepresentation. The value is 0.700 and not 7.00

(Lines 410-411) “Consequently, none of the elements are eliminated. Again, the AVE indicates values above 0.500 to support…” -> I did not find AVE in Table 3.

Response: The AVE values are provided in table 3 as the last values in the respective columns.

The author did not respond to one of my previous comments: According to Table 2, the survey questionnaire was made up of seven constructs: SI (7 items), EE (3 items), PE (6 items), FC (5 items), TR (7 items), AD (5 325 items), and PM (3 items). The authors need to present in details the survey questionnaire, i.e., each question asked to the respondents. For examples, what are the 7 questions asked to measure the social influence construct? Similarly, what are the 3 questions asked to measure EE, and etc.

What is required is to list all the questions (items) instead of “components” which are too sketchy to judge if the questions (items) are appropriate to measure each of the psychological constructs.

Response: We apologize for not making the specific questions for the construct available in the table 2. Since the table would be big, we have included the questionnaire in the appendix I section after the references. Further we have added a note under table 2 to guide readers.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1) Please about the need, justification, research questions and objectives of study in introduction section.

2) Please check the writing style in literature. There is a disconnect with the central theme of paper.

3) Please elaborate on the research gaps for the study in literature section.

4) Methodology section must also deliberate on the research type, research design, sampling techniques and research design adopted for the study in detail.

5) Please check the English of the paper with English expert

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Second round

 

• Please about the need, justification, research questions and objectives of study in introduction section.

 

Response: Sorry for not making this clearer, however the need, justification, objectives and research questions are provided in the introduction section; kindly check

 

Need and justification- 51-53, 60-62, and 64-68

Research questions- lines 72-73

Objectives- lines 69-71

2) Please check the writing style in literature. There is a disconnect with the central theme of paper.

 

Response: Sorry for the disconnect. We have modified this section accordingly. This section first presents the reason for the selection of the theory and follows up with related works in brief. Afterwards, the hypotheses are developed based on the theory and the studies.

3) Please elaborate on the research gaps for the study in literature section.

 

 

Response: We have amended this section to reflect the content of the study.

4) Methodology section must also deliberate on the research type, research design, sampling techniques and research design adopted for the study in detail.

 

Response: Sorry for not clarifying these sections to ease replication. We have modified these sections accordingly to improve readability.

5) Please check the English of the paper with English expert

 

Response: We have edited the work using Grammarly and scored above 92% for accuracy in language usage.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The author(s) did respond effectively to my comments in the second-round review. I do not have any further comments. Congrats!