PONE-D-24-56273-->-->Are Facial Recognition Payments Aging-Friendly? Investigating Acceptance Through an Extended Technology Acceptance Model-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. LIU,

==============================

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Please provide detailed responses to each of the reviewers' comments. Additionally, proofreading is necessary to address any existing typos and grammatical errors. As per PLOS' policy, authors are required to disclose their research data. Since your data is not proprietary, it must be made publicly available.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2025 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.

• 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,

Simon Dang

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. 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.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Additional Editor Comments:

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Are Facial Recognition Payments Aging-Friendly? Investigating Acceptance Through an Extended Technology Acceptance Model

1. The main issue with this study is its lack of originality. While the study's focus on facial recognition payment in the field of elderly populations is meaningful, I believe it is somewhat insufficient for publication. Therefore, it is better to emphasize the originality in the Introduction section.

2. The study employs Technology Acceptance Model, but it is worth considering other theories in order to support the research model in the study.

3. It would be beneficial to add empirical studies for hypotheses 6 to 14

4. Citing the following paper would help enhance the quality of the theoretical background in this study.

Joo et al. (2024). Effects of foodservice consumers’ perceptions of face recognition payment on attitude, desire, and behavioral intentions: a cross-cultural study. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 41(3), 359-376.

Hwang et al. (2024). Effects of motivated consumer innovativeness on facial recognition payment adoption in the restaurant industry: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 117, 103646.

Kim et al. (2024). The antecedents and consequences of task–technology fit of facial recognition payment systems in the restaurant industry: cultural differences. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 15(3), 397-416.

Hwang et al. (2024). An integrated model of artificially intelligent (AI) facial recognition technology adoption based on perceived risk theory and extended TPB: A comparative analysis of US and South Korea. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 33(8), 1071-1099.

5. All measurement items should be presented.

6. A discussion is also necessary for hypotheses that are not statistically significant.

7. The theoretical implications were presented in comparison with existing research, but they do not carry significant meaning.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. As the author(s) mentioned, this study examined FRP, focusing on elderly consumers. This study is meaningful in that it addresses the gaps of technology research that primarily focuses on younger consumers. There are suggestions that need to be taken into consideration and to be corrected for increasing the quality of this paper.

1. This paper is well-written, and the ideas are presented in a clear manner.

2. What is the reasoning behind reporting H2, H12, and H13 as ‘partially supported?’

3. What is a logical explanation for why TSE did not have a significant effect on attitude specifically in the context of elderly consumers?

4. The paper states that the data collection focused on individuals aged 60 and above, but Table 2 lists an age group from 55-60 years old. Were all participants over the age of 60 or were the female participants following the threshold of the Chinese official retirement age?

5. Were all participants previously familiar with FRP systems or was there some type of informational materials given to the participants to help them gain an understanding of how FRP systems operate prior to completing the survey?

**********

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.

Understanding Older Adults’Adoption of Facial Recognition Payment: An Integrated Model of TAM and UXT

PONE-D-24-56273R1

Dear Dr. LIU,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Simon Dang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE and thank you for giving us the opportunity to continue to work with you. I am delighted to inform you that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication. This is a significant achievement, and I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to you. We look forward to sharing your valuable contribution with the broader academic community. Well done!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their efforts. They sincerely revised the manuscript according to my comments, and the quality of the paper has significantly improved. Well done.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********