Fintech Service Quality of Saudi Banks: Digital Transformation and Awareness in Satisfaction, Re-Use Intentions, and the Sustainable Performance of Firms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study mainly analyzes the quality of fintech services in Saudi banks. I don't think the research value of this topic is very high. Because many scholars have carried out similar research in the past. There is not enough research novelty in this article. From the point of view of the specific research content, the author also needs to modify the following contents:

1. Summary. In this part, the introduction of research background, research purpose and research methods is insufficient. The presentation of the research conclusions is also lacking in a systematic and logical manner. I suggest the author rewrite the abstract.

2. Key words. The number is too large, 3-5 are recommended.

3.Introduction. This part lacks the introduction of marginal contribution. It is recommended to increase.

4. In this study, there are few introductions about the basis for selecting research methods. It is suggested to add.

5. With regard to sample data, it is recommended that descriptive statistical analysis be added.

6. The analysis of research data lacks the combination with the real situation. It is suggested to add.

7. This paper studies the quality of fintech in Saudi Arabia and proposes to supplement the comparative analysis of fintech quality development between Saudi Arabia and other countries.

8. The conclusion of the paper is not logical and organized, so it is suggested to rewrite the conclusion.

9. The references are too old. It is suggested to supplement the literatures of the last three years.

10. There are still some wording and grammar errors in the text, so it is suggested that the author carefully check the language of the whole text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This study mainly analyzes the quality of fintech services in Saudi banks. I don't think the research value of this topic is very high. Because many scholars have carried out similar research in the past. There is not enough research novelty in this article. From the point of view of the specific research content, the author also needs to modify the following contents:

1. Summary. In this part, the introduction of research background, research purpose and research methods is insufficient. The presentation of the research conclusions is also lacking in a systematic and logical manner. I suggest the author rewrite the abstract.

2. Key words. The number is too large, 3-5 are recommended.

3.Introduction. This part lacks the introduction of marginal contribution. It is recommended to increase.

4. In this study, there are few introductions about the basis for selecting research methods. It is suggested to add.

5. With regard to sample data, it is recommended that descriptive statistical analysis be added.

6. The analysis of research data lacks the combination with the real situation. It is suggested to add.

7. This paper studies the quality of fintech in Saudi Arabia and proposes to supplement the comparative analysis of fintech quality development between Saudi Arabia and other countries.

8. The conclusion of the paper is not logical and organized, so it is suggested to rewrite the conclusion.

9. The references are too old. It is suggested to supplement the literatures of the last three years.

10. There are still some wording and grammar errors in the text, so it is suggested that the author carefully check the language of the whole text.

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
(Yes, the paper is proofread and edited by English Native Speaker) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(Yes, I have improved)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(Yes, I have improved)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(Yes, I have improved)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(Yes, I have improved)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(Yes, I have improved)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(Yes, I have improved)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(Yes, I have improved)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study mainly analyzes the quality of fintech services in Saudi banks. I don't think the research value of this topic is very high. Because many scholars have carried out similar research in the past. There is not enough research novelty in this article. From the point of view of the specific research content, the author also needs to modify the following contents:

1. Summary. In this part, the introduction of research background, research purpose and research methods is insufficient. The presentation of the research conclusions is also lacking in a systematic and logical manner. I suggest the author rewrite the abstract.

Yes, I have revised abstract and introduction sections on page 1-3

2. Key words. The number is too large, 3-5 are recommended.

Yes, controlled on page 1

3.Introduction. This part lacks the introduction of marginal contribution. It is recommended to increase.

Yes, I have revised introduction and put the rational contributions on page 2 and 3

4. In this study, there are few introductions about the basis for selecting research methods. It is suggested to add.

Yes, I have added on page 8-9

5. With regard to sample data, it is recommended that descriptive statistical analysis be added.

Yes, I have already put demographic descriptive analysis on page 10-11 (Table 1)

6. The analysis of research data lacks the combination with the real situation. It is suggested to add.

Sorry, I did not understand this comment. Please elaborate it. Thanks

7. This paper studies the quality of fintech in Saudi Arabia and proposes to supplement the comparative analysis of fintech quality development between Saudi Arabia and other countries.
8. The conclusion of the paper is not logical and organized, so it is suggested to rewrite the conclusion.

Yes, I have revised conclusion section on page 19-20

9. The references are too old. It is suggested to supplement the literatures of the last three years.

Yes, I have used all latest articles but only research methods related articles and theory-based articles are old because I need to put the original sources.

10. There are still some wording and grammar errors in the text, so it is suggested that the author carefully check the language of the whole text.

Yes, the paper is proofread and edited by English Native Speaker) 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text analyzes what impact the introduction of FinTech technology is having on the user experience of Saudi Arabian banks. For this purpose, a survey is conducted in which important variables of analysis are taken into account. The methodological approach is impeccable and there is narrative coherence throughout the paper. Congratulations to the author.

However, in order to achieve impact and scientific resonance, the text must distance itself from its clearly descriptive dimension and transform it into an interpretative one. To this end, we consider it necessary to develop something that the author launches in the introduction to the paper when he comments as follows: "Although its influence is felt worldwide, the repercussions of this technological revolution take on a very different form in each society and culture, as seen in Saudi Arabia. According to the findings of a study that compared the adaptation of financial technologies in the Islamic banking sectors of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia [2], these technologies need to agree with the use of Shariah". Analyzing this question would give the paper a higher flight, clearly elevating the level of origin and academic soundness. We encourage the author to carry out this exercise, either comparatively, that is, by comparing the results of Saudi Arabia, for example, with those of Malaysia on which there is already scientific literature as indicated in the paper, or by comparing the results that can be extrapolated to the universal or to the particular, in this case of the Saudi culture (or to be more specific of the religious condition). To this end, we recommend an introductory section in which the author presents the main features of Saudi culture or religion.

This is the reason why we consider that the evaluation should be better. On the one hand, we consider that the paper has the scope to be published by Sustainability, but, on the other hand, it should reinforce the aspects pointed out to achieve this purpose.

 

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(Yes, I have improved)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text analyzes what impact the introduction of FinTech technology is having on the user experience of Saudi Arabian banks. For this purpose, a survey is conducted in which important variables of analysis are taken into account. The methodological approach is impeccable and there is narrative coherence throughout the paper. Congratulations to the author.

Thank you very much.

However, in order to achieve impact and scientific resonance, the text must distance itself from its clearly descriptive dimension and transform it into an interpretative one. To this end, we consider it necessary to develop something that the author launches in the introduction to the paper when he comments as follows: "Although its influence is felt worldwide, the repercussions of this technological revolution take on a very different form in each society and culture, as seen in Saudi Arabia. According to the findings of a study that compared the adaptation of financial technologies in the Islamic banking sectors of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia [2], these technologies need to agree with the use of Shariah". Analyzing this question would give the paper a higher flight, clearly elevating the level of origin and academic soundness. We encourage the author to carry out this exercise, either comparatively, that is, by comparing the results of Saudi Arabia, for example, with those of Malaysia on which there is already scientific literature as indicated in the paper, or by comparing the results that can be extrapolated to the universal or to the particular, in this case of the Saudi culture (or to be more specific of the religious condition). To this end, we recommend an introductory section in which the author presents the main features of Saudi culture or religion.

Yes, I have improved introduction sections (page 1-3)

I have also put comparative analysis on page 4

This is the reason why we consider that the evaluation should be better. On the one hand, we consider that the paper has the scope to be published by Sustainability, but, on the other hand, it should reinforce the aspects pointed out to achieve this purpose.

Yes, I have improved by following the suggestions

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As lawyer I had to confess I found quite challenging to familiarize with the approach chosen by the author, which is interdisciplinary and concentrated on other discipline (such as economics, management and alike). However, the quality of the writing together with the methodology chosen made accessible the core of the paper to me too, As a matter of fact Fintech revolution is one of the most significant paradigm change we are experiencing in the recent time. This is true in the EU and apparently it is true also in Saudi Arabia.  I appreciated the quality of the analysis of the author and his capacity to make sense of the most relevant changes (and threats) introduced b the tech revolution.

Years ago Bill Gates used to say "In the future banking will be necessary, banks will be not". I guess he was right.

Author Response

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As lawyer I had to confess I found quite challenging to familiarize with the approach chosen by the author, which is interdisciplinary and concentrated on other discipline (such as economics, management and alike). However, the quality of the writing together with the methodology chosen made accessible the core of the paper to me too, As a matter of fact Fintech revolution is one of the most significant paradigm change we are experiencing in the recent time. This is true in the EU and apparently it is true also in Saudi Arabia.  I appreciated the quality of the analysis of the author and his capacity to make sense of the most relevant changes (and threats) introduced b the tech revolution.

Thank you very much

I have further improved paper so I hope these changes make you happy

Years ago Bill Gates used to say "In the future banking will be necessary, banks will be not". I guess he was right.

Yes, it was really astonished for the world investors to move physical banking into online

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this paper has reached a publishable level. I recommend that the paper be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think this paper has reached a publishable level. I recommend that the paper be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author's review of the paper complies with the suggestions made. The author has roughly resolved the issues referred to. Congratulations.