Linking Fintech Payment Services and Customer Loyalty Intention in the Hospitality Industry: The Mediating Role of Customer Experience and Attitude

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      The introduction, hypotheses, and results discussion need to be linked with the theory, theory underpinnings need to be discussed.

2.      The authors fail to address the research contributions.

3.      The sample is not welly described.

4.      The sampling method also is not discussed.

5.      You have to provide 2 figures. The first one is CFA model and the second one is SEM model. You have used PLS?? you should provide the output results (Figures with their respective values). For example, for CFA, the figure should demonstrate all CFA related results.

6.      The results provided in table 3 should provide, CA, CR, and AVE for each Fintech dimension.

7.      Please provide a complete set of results for Discriminant Validity. Present the results as provided by the software, don’t omit or put ---- .

8.      Try to improve your discussion linking prior studies findings, theory, and hypotheses.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer

Greetings. We have tried to address your valuable suggestions to further improve our manuscript. Thank you once again. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

(1). Abstract: Abstract reads well

 (2). Keywords: Add adequate keywords

 (3). Introduction: This section explains why this particular study is needed, what gaps will be addressed by doing this research and what will be the contribution of the research. I suggest a complete re-writing of the Introduction section considering the points raised.

 (4). Literature Review: Adequate

 Please point out how fintech service applies in the Hospitality industry in part 2.1.

The hypotheses should be mentioned related to the hospitality industry before proposing.

 (5). Methodology:

Elaborate the details of the research methodology. Justify, why adopted the PLS-SEM techniques. Discus the suitability of this methodology for this problem.  Address the advantages of this methodology over other methodologies.

Please explain why the sample size is 384

(6). To check the abbreviations throughout the manuscript. Some abbreviations are missing in the description

 

(7). Results: Highlights the novel aspects

 (8). Discussion: Incorporate the interpretation of findings.

The discussion section of this paper is quite weak. I suggest that a new discussion section should be dedicated to the article. The discussion section should critically present its views rather than simply stating the significance of the data. I would suggest that the authors analyze the theoretical and managerial contributions separately in more depth to find a solution rather than a superficial discussion.

 (9). Theoretical and Managerial /practical implications of the findings:  Incorporate

 (10). Conclusion: Incorporate the limitations and future research directions of this study

 (11). Citations/references are not in a proper format in the entire paper. It should be corrected. Attention should be paid to the clarity of expression and readability

 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer:

Greetings! We have tried to address your valuable comments to further improve our manuscript. Thank you once again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have designed an interesting study about Fintech services and customer loyalty within the tourism industry, framing a model with hypotheses and backing it up with several similar studies in the field. An important improvement which should be made for the article is in the discussions' part: a review of the hypotheses should be done with much more details if they are supported or not and how does that corroborate other studies in the area?

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer:

Greetings! We have tried to address your valuable comments to further improve our manuscript. Thank you once again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review your very interesting paper. The goal of the paper is expressed properly. The structure of the paper is right. The literature review is quite complete in both breadth and depth. I appreciated the contextualization of the research hypotheses as well as the discussion of the results based on the structural model. The conclusions are clear and objective. Congratulations on your work.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer:

Greetings! We have tried to address your valuable comments to further improve our manuscript. Thank you once again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The suggested comments are incorporated.