Fintech Services and the Drivers of Their Implementation in Small and Medium Enterprises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of “Fintech services and the drivers of their implementation in 2 Small and Medium Enterprises”.
The study of how Fintechs evolved during the Covid-19 crisis, particularly in the way small and medium enterprises (SMEs) started adopting it, offers material for much research in the years to come. This paper gives particularly emphasis to a number of factors that may be of importance to the adoption of Fintech products by SMEs.
The companies that answered the questionnaire are clearly identified.
A very thorough of statistics analysis has been used in order to gauge the hypotheses of the research. Everything has been very well explained.
The conclusions are clearly discussed.
So, in my view, the paper is ready for publication. I f the authors and the Editor see fit, I have some remarks.
1. In the abstract, the authors cite five different hypotheses, which are not specified. I suggest writing something like "some of the hypothesis that were proposed have been rejected, some have been confirmed, and some have been partially confirmed".
2. In the Introduction, a paragraph explaining what a Fintech is would be a good idea. I know it is described in Section 2, but a glimpse should be given in Section 1.
3. Lines 78 and 79. Write what SME and TOE mean.
4. The article is very well written, in impeccable English. I found just one typo (and I am very proud of myself on this): please change "particular innovation [31]" to "particular innovation [31]."
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your preliminary comments that will complement our work.
Comment
Review of “Fintech services and the drivers of their implementation in 2 Small and Medium Enterprises”.
The study of how Fintechs evolved during the Covid-19 crisis, particularly in the way small and medium enterprises (SMEs) started adopting it, offers material for much research in the years to come. This paper gives particularly emphasis to a number of factors that may be of importance to the adoption of Fintech products by SMEs.
The companies that answered the questionnaire are clearly identified.
A very thorough of statistics analysis has been used in order to gauge the hypotheses of the research. Everything has been very well explained.
The conclusions are clearly discussed.
So, in my view, the paper is ready for publication. I f the authors and the Editor see fit, I have some remarks.
- In the abstract, the authors cite five different hypotheses, which are not specified. I suggest writing something like "some of the hypothesis that were proposed have been rejected, some have been confirmed, and some have been partially confirmed".
Thank you for the suggestion. The description of the results of the hypotheses was written more specifically in the abstract. The results of the confirmed, partially confirmed, and unconfirmed hypotheses were highlighted.
Comment
- In the Introduction, a paragraph explaining what a Fintech is would be a good idea. I know it is described in Section 2, but a glimpse should be given in Section 1.
As you suggested we have included one of the Fintech’s definitions.
Comment
- Lines 78 and 79. Write what SME and TOE mean.
The meaning of the acronyms SME and TOE framework has been added in the introduction.
Comment
- The article is very well written, in impeccable English. I found just one typo (and I am very proud of myself on this): please change "particular innovation [31]" to "particular innovation [31]."
The full stop has been added.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of my co-authors,
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is written about fintech in small and medium enterprises. The overall merit is satisfactory, but need some minor revisions before acceptance.
1- Abstract need to be modified, hypothesis 1 and 2 should be replaced by actual variables (findings). So, the reader understand it clearly.
2- The background and objective of study is clearly mentioned, but the contribution of this study is missing. The author should report the contribution in introduction section.
3- What are the reasons for rejection of Hypothesis 4 in Portugal.
4- What are the policy implication of this study?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate your preliminary comments that will complement our work.
Comment
The manuscript is written about fintech in small and medium enterprises. The overall merit is satisfactory, but need some minor revisions before acceptance.
1- Abstract need to be modified, hypothesis 1 and 2 should be replaced by actual variables (findings). So, the reader understand it clearly.
Thank you for the suggestion. The description of the results of the hypotheses was written more specifically in the abstract. The results of the confirmed, partially confirmed, and unconfirmed hypotheses were highlighted.
Comment
2- The background and objective of study is clearly mentioned, but the contribution of this study is missing. The author should report the contribution in introduction section.
As suggested, missing contributions from the study were introduced at the end of the introduction.
Comment
3- What are the reasons for rejection of Hypothesis 4 in Portugal.
The justification for not having confirmed this hypothesis is in the discussion between lines 750 and 761 (page 21).
Comment
4- What are the policy implications of this study?
As suggested, missing policy implications from the study were introduced at the end of the conclusion.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of my co-authors,
