An Integrated Online/Offline Social Network-Based Model for Crowdfunding Support in Developing Countries: The Case of Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aims to assess the barriers to the adoption of online crowdfunding mechanisms in a developing country (Nigeria) and to provide a new online/offline fund-raising model.

• The topic of crowdfunding mechanisms is interesting and focus on Nigeria is a plus
• The structure of the paper is good, a significant part of the paper is clear and well done

Major issues

• Part 5 – the model. The main problems are in my opinion the lack of clarity and logical structure in this part (for both, picture and explanations). What is the starting point in the diagram? What is the meaning/ content of boxes like Offline dimension and Online dimension and Crowdfunding success? Are they activities, variables? Is any color code involved?
• Although I understood the core idea of the paper – that in developing countries a mix of online and offline tools are necessary in order to successfully implement a crowdfunding project, there are some points to explain: if somebody is not ”fortunate enough” (line 596) to have internet access because is too expensive, why is he/she a potential investor? Maybe the authors could provide some arguments related to the type of projects funded through crowdfunding (the examples in the paper with millions of dollars are not relevant);
• Lack of data/ information regarding the current situation for the variables (level of internet access in Nigeria, level of social media penetration, levels of technological maturity, levels of poverty) in order to provide a context for the results regarding the perception about these variables.
• The gap between part 4 and part 5 is a problem. It is not clear how the dimensions studied in part 4 are relevant and represent a foundation for the model in part 5

Minor issues

• There are parts of the paper which should be updated. Examples: line 108 ”EU crowdfunding market had an increase of 23.2% in 2014 compared to 2013”; lines 443-446 ”According to the date released by the social media giant Facebook In 2016 which reveals an alarming information that only a small percentage of about 30 millions Nigerians had accounts with leaving over 143,3 million without any involvement with their platform”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting paper about crowdfounding in Nigeria. A much needed and comprehensive analysis. However, a few issues seem debatable to me:
- why the text compares the situation of Nigeria and the UK, the differences are obvious. I think it would be better to compare the situation in Egypt, South Africa, maybe Tanzania or Ethiopia. I know that each of these countries has different problems, but maybe the situation in Nigeria would be different, better?
- the hypotheses at work seem obvious and without statistical verification the reader knows what it will be like.
- the need to step up efforts to keep crowdfunding in Nigeria safe in the form of adequate infrastructure and security has been insufficiently emphasized.

Nevertheless, the text is interesting and necessary. I really like integrating online and offline activities in social financing. Significant for the operation of the economies of, for example, Nigeria, is the increase in people's confidence in each other, but also in institutions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript discussed an interesting topic supported with the qualitative and quantitative methods. 

However, there are some issues that I would like to address: First, how do the researchers come up with 4 major factors affecting the adoption of social media for crowdfunding? How is the procedure for conducting analysis - e.g. assigning code to 1st order 2nd order and 3rd order - for qualitative data collected from interviews. I think there is a missing link here.

Second, the authors claimed that they have conducted a systematic literature review. I would like to see how are the procedures for systematic literature reviews being used here - eg. the databases used for searching the articles, the keywords entered, the criteria for inclusion of articles for further analysis, etc. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf