Mobile payment, digital inclusive finance, and residents’ consumption behavior research

Ningning Hu; Guanyu Hou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288679

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 4, 2023
20 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor PONE-D-23-00008Research on the impact path of digital Inclusive Finance Development on household consumptionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hou, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 06 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, László Vasa, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "NO" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO" Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Digitization is increasing day by day. This situation supports the increase of financial literacy and gains digital financial inclusion. Advances in digital finance are also the subject of more and more academic studies. The authors discussed the effects of these advances on consumption. I suggest the author to reference the data in the introduction section. Some writing flaws need to be checked. Policy implications should be explained and findings should be compare to literature Reviewer #2: The objective of this manuscript is to analyze the relationship among digital Inclusive Finance Development and household consumption. The subject addressed is interesting and relevant for policy making; however, I have some concerns about this paper: 1. The author(s) should clearly present the contribution of this paper to the literature. It should be elaborated on what makes this topic an interesting research area, explaining the novelty of this research output on the subject matter. 2. The author(s) should clearly explain the empirical approaches implemented in their analysis. The author(s) provide the results of various tests without including a clear explanation of their use and why they were chosen. It is important to have a more in-depth analysis of the methods used and obtained results. 3. Some arguments should be further analysed to be better supported and the ideas behind them should be developed to help the reader’s understanding (e.g. arguments included a section on the methodology and data used). 4. Some tables included and the related analysis should be revised as they are not clear for the reader to have a better understanding on the outcome of this empirical analysis. 5. Some conclusions reported cannot be fully supported by the statistical information provided. A careful revision on this matter is needed. 6. The quality of English in the paper needs to be improved. 7. The references should be updated. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288679.r001
Revision 1
1 Jun 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer #1: Digitization is increasing day by day. This situation supports the increase of financial literacy and gains digital financial inclusion. Advances in digital finance are also the subject of more and more academic studies. The authors discussed the effects of these advances on consumption.I suggest the author to reference the data in the introduction section. Some writing flaws need to be checked. Policy implications should be explained and findings should be compare to literature Dear Reviewer1, Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our work. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and we have made the necessary revisions to address them. Below is our point-by-point response to your comments. Reference the data in the introduction section: We agree that referencing the data in the introduction section will strengthen the context of our study. We have now added references to relevant datasets and sources in the revised introduction, which provides a solid foundation for our research and highlights the importance of the topic. Address writing flaws: We have thoroughly reviewed our manuscript and made the necessary corrections to address the writing flaws you pointed out. We have also asked a colleague proficient in English to proofread the manuscript to ensure the clarity and coherence of our writing. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. Explain policy implications: In response to your suggestion, we have added a new section in our discussion, titled "Policy Implications." In this section, we have elaborated on the practical implications of our findings for policymakers and regulators. We have also discussed how our research can contribute to the development of more effective policies to promote digital financial inclusion and financial literacy. Compare findings to literature: We have expanded our discussion to include a comparison of our findings with previous literature. We have cited relevant studies and highlighted both the similarities and differences between our results and those reported in the literature. This comparison not only strengthens our findings but also contributes to the ongoing academic debate on the effects of digital finance on consumption. We hope that these revisions have addressed your concerns and enhanced the quality of our manuscript. Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback. We look forward to your further comments and suggestions. Reviewer #2: The objective of this manuscript is to analyze the relationship among digital Inclusive Finance Development and household consumption. The subject addressed is interesting and relevant for policy making; however, I have some concerns about this paper: 1. The author(s) should clearly present the contribution of this paper to the literature. It should be elaborated on what makes this topic an interesting research area, explaining the novelty of this research output on the subject matter. 2. The author(s) should clearly explain the empirical approaches implemented in their analysis. The author(s) provide the results of various tests without including a clear explanation of their use and why they were chosen. It is important to have a more in-depth analysis of the methods used and obtained results. 3. Some arguments should be further analysed to be better supported and the ideas behind them should be developed to help the reader’s understanding (e.g. arguments included a section on the methodology and data used). 4. Some tables included and the related analysis should be revised as they are not clear for the reader to have a better understanding on the outcome of this empirical analysis. 5. Some conclusions reported cannot be fully supported by the statistical information provided. A careful revision on this matter is needed. 6. The quality of English in the paper needs to be improved. 7. The references should be updated. Dear Reviewer2, Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing valuable feedback. We appreciate your insights and suggestions, and we will address each of the concerns you have raised. Below is our response to each of your comments: Contribution to the literature: We understand the importance of highlighting the contribution of our research. In the revised manuscript, we will emphasize the novelty of our study, explaining how it fills a gap in the existing literature and contributes to the understanding of the relationship between digital inclusive finance development and household consumption. Empirical approaches: We will clarify our choice of empirical approaches and provide a detailed explanation of the methods used in our analysis. This will include a rationale for selecting specific tests and a thorough discussion of the results obtained. Further analysis of arguments: We will develop and expand the arguments in our paper, particularly in the methodology and data sections. This will ensure that the ideas are better supported and more accessible to the reader. Revision of tables and related analysis: We will revise the tables in question to ensure that they are clear and easy to understand. We will also provide a more in-depth analysis of the results presented in the tables, helping the reader to better comprehend the outcomes of our empirical analysis. Conclusions and statistical support: We will carefully review our conclusions to ensure that they are fully supported by the statistical information provided. We will revise any conclusions that are not sufficiently supported by the data. English quality improvement: We acknowledge the need to improve the quality of English in the paper. We will thoroughly proofread and edit the manuscript to ensure that it is free of grammatical errors and is written in a clear and concise manner. Updated references: We will update the references in our paper to include the most recent and relevant literature on the subject matter. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback. We are confident that by addressing these concerns, we can significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. We look forward to submitting the revised version for your consideration. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288679.r002
2 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor Mobile Payment, Digital Inclusive Finance, and Residents' Consumption Behavior Research PONE-D-23-00008R1 Dear Dr. Hou, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, László Vasa, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: Yes: Umer Shahzad ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288679.r003
Formally Accepted
12 Sep 2023 Acceptance Letter - László Vasa, Editor PONE-D-23-00008R1 Mobile Payment, Digital Inclusive Finance, and Residents' Consumption Behavior Research Dear Dr. Hou: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Dr. László Vasa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288679.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .