scan.json (24324B)
1 { 2 "paper": { 3 "title": "E-wallet Delivery Technology Architecture Adoption: A Review", 4 "authors": [ 5 "Kalaivani Chellappan", 6 "Tharsshinee Elanchselvan", 7 "Asma Abu-Samah" 8 ], 9 "year": 2025, 10 "venue": "Jurnal Kejuruteraan", 11 "doi": "10.17576/jkukm-2025-37(1)-14" 12 }, 13 "scan_version": 3, 14 "active_modules": [ 15 "survey_methodology" 16 ], 17 "methodology_tags": [ 18 "meta-analysis" 19 ], 20 "key_findings": "This systematic review of 12 articles (2017-2021) compares NFC, QR code, and SMS delivery technologies for e-wallets. The review concludes that QR code is the most suitable delivery technology for Malaysian e-wallets due to its low setup cost, high adaptability, and wide adoption among Malaysian users compared to NFC and SMS. NFC's high setup cost and low penetration rate are identified as key disadvantages, while SMS usage is declining due to competition from free messaging services. The paper proposes integrating QR-based e-wallets with blockchain, AI, IoT, and RPA for adaptive money management.", 21 "checklist": { 22 "artifacts": { 23 "code_released": { 24 "applies": true, 25 "answer": false, 26 "justification": "No source code or analysis scripts are released. No repository URL or archive is mentioned anywhere in the paper." 27 }, 28 "data_released": { 29 "applies": true, 30 "answer": false, 31 "justification": "No dataset is released. The list of 159 initial search results, the extracted data from the 12 reviewed articles, and the data search forms are not made available." 32 }, 33 "environment_specified": { 34 "applies": true, 35 "answer": false, 36 "justification": "No computational environment is specified. While this is a review paper, the search and analysis tools/software used are not described." 37 }, 38 "reproduction_instructions": { 39 "applies": true, 40 "answer": false, 41 "justification": "No step-by-step reproduction instructions are provided. While the search strategy is described (keywords, databases), it lacks sufficient detail (e.g., exact search dates, database-specific query syntax) for exact replication." 42 } 43 }, 44 "statistical_methodology": { 45 "confidence_intervals_or_error_bars": { 46 "applies": false, 47 "answer": false, 48 "justification": "This is a narrative literature review that does not perform statistical analysis or report quantitative results requiring confidence intervals." 49 }, 50 "significance_tests": { 51 "applies": false, 52 "answer": false, 53 "justification": "This is a narrative review paper that makes no comparative statistical claims requiring significance testing." 54 }, 55 "effect_sizes_reported": { 56 "applies": false, 57 "answer": false, 58 "justification": "No experimental results are reported; this is a qualitative literature review without effect size measurements." 59 }, 60 "sample_size_justified": { 61 "applies": false, 62 "answer": false, 63 "justification": "This is a literature review, not an experimental study. No power analysis or sample size justification is applicable." 64 }, 65 "variance_reported": { 66 "applies": false, 67 "answer": false, 68 "justification": "No experimental runs are conducted; this is a qualitative synthesis of existing literature." 69 } 70 }, 71 "evaluation_design": { 72 "baselines_included": { 73 "applies": true, 74 "answer": false, 75 "justification": "The paper does not compare its review against prior surveys or reviews. The Related Work section mentions individual studies on specific technologies but does not benchmark this review's methodology or conclusions against other surveys." 76 }, 77 "baselines_contemporary": { 78 "applies": false, 79 "answer": false, 80 "justification": "No baseline comparisons are included, so contemporaneity cannot be assessed." 81 }, 82 "ablation_study": { 83 "applies": false, 84 "answer": false, 85 "justification": "No system or method is proposed that could be ablated; this is a literature review." 86 }, 87 "multiple_metrics": { 88 "applies": false, 89 "answer": false, 90 "justification": "No experimental evaluation is conducted; the review uses qualitative feature comparison rather than quantitative metrics." 91 }, 92 "human_evaluation": { 93 "applies": false, 94 "answer": false, 95 "justification": "No system output is produced that could be evaluated by humans; this is a literature review." 96 }, 97 "held_out_test_set": { 98 "applies": false, 99 "answer": false, 100 "justification": "No experimental evaluation requiring held-out data; this is a literature review." 101 }, 102 "per_category_breakdown": { 103 "applies": true, 104 "answer": true, 105 "justification": "Results are broken down by delivery technology (NFC, QR, SMS) with Table 4 providing per-paper feature comparisons across all three technologies. RQ1 and RQ2 discuss advantages and disadvantages of each technology separately." 106 }, 107 "failure_cases_discussed": { 108 "applies": true, 109 "answer": false, 110 "justification": "The paper does not discuss where its review methodology breaks down, what types of articles it may have missed, or limitations of its comparative approach." 111 }, 112 "negative_results_reported": { 113 "applies": true, 114 "answer": true, 115 "justification": "The paper discusses disadvantages of each technology: NFC's high setup cost, low penetration rate, and device dependency; SMS's declining usage and complexity; QR's need for native applications. It also notes no papers were found on digital-only applications." 116 } 117 }, 118 "claims_and_evidence": { 119 "abstract_claims_supported": { 120 "applies": true, 121 "answer": false, 122 "justification": "The abstract claims QR is 'most popular, secure, fast, and cost-effective compared to NFC and SMS.' While popularity and cost-effectiveness are supported by the review, the claim of QR being more 'secure' than NFC is not well-supported — multiple reviewed papers highlight NFC's strong security due to short-range communication. The abstract also does not bound these claims to the Malaysian context, though the results section does." 123 }, 124 "causal_claims_justified": { 125 "applies": false, 126 "answer": false, 127 "justification": "The paper makes comparative recommendations (QR is 'best suited') rather than causal claims. Background statements like 'the pandemic triggered a sharp rise in digital payments' are contextual, not the paper's own empirical claims." 128 }, 129 "generalization_bounded": { 130 "applies": true, 131 "answer": false, 132 "justification": "The title 'E-wallet Delivery Technology Architecture Adoption: A Review' is geographically unbounded, and the abstract makes general claims about QR being 'most popular, secure, fast, and cost-effective.' However, the evidence is primarily from 12 papers with heavy Malaysian focus, and the conclusion explicitly states 'QR code is the best delivery technology option for e-wallets designed in Malaysia.' The title and abstract overclaim relative to the evidence." 133 }, 134 "alternative_explanations_discussed": { 135 "applies": true, 136 "answer": false, 137 "justification": "The paper does not consider alternative explanations for QR dominance in Malaysia, such as regulatory push, government stimulus programs (ePENJANA mentioned only as context), merchant network effects, or marketing investment by QR-based platforms. The recommendation is presented as if purely driven by technical merits." 138 }, 139 "proxy_outcome_distinction": { 140 "applies": true, 141 "answer": false, 142 "justification": "The paper measures adoption rates and feature comparisons from 12 papers but frames these as determining the 'best suited' delivery technology. The gap between what existing studies report (usage patterns, user preferences) and what 'best suited for adaptive money management' actually requires (data richness, API capability, analytics potential) is not acknowledged." 143 } 144 }, 145 "setup_transparency": { 146 "model_versions_specified": { 147 "applies": false, 148 "answer": false, 149 "justification": "No AI/ML models are used in this literature review." 150 }, 151 "prompts_provided": { 152 "applies": false, 153 "answer": false, 154 "justification": "No prompting or AI interaction is part of this study." 155 }, 156 "hyperparameters_reported": { 157 "applies": false, 158 "answer": false, 159 "justification": "No experiments or model training are conducted." 160 }, 161 "scaffolding_described": { 162 "applies": false, 163 "answer": false, 164 "justification": "No agentic scaffolding is used; this is a literature review." 165 }, 166 "data_preprocessing_documented": { 167 "applies": true, 168 "answer": true, 169 "justification": "The paper describes the search strategy (keywords, databases, date range 2017-2021), inclusion/exclusion criteria in Table 2, and a three-phase selection process (article type filtering, abstract review with dedup, independent reader assessment). Figure 2 presents the selection flowchart. Criteria at each stage are stated." 170 } 171 }, 172 "limitations_and_scope": { 173 "limitations_section_present": { 174 "applies": true, 175 "answer": false, 176 "justification": "No dedicated limitations or threats-to-validity section exists. The paper proceeds directly from Discussion to Conclusion without addressing study limitations." 177 }, 178 "threats_to_validity_specific": { 179 "applies": true, 180 "answer": false, 181 "justification": "No threats to validity are discussed. The narrow search window (2017-2021), restrictive AND-based query, small sample (12 papers), and geographic bias are not acknowledged." 182 }, 183 "scope_boundaries_stated": { 184 "applies": true, 185 "answer": false, 186 "justification": "No explicit statements about what the results do not show. The conclusion does narrow to 'e-wallets designed in Malaysia' but does not state what settings, populations, or claims are excluded from the review's scope." 187 } 188 }, 189 "data_integrity": { 190 "raw_data_available": { 191 "applies": true, 192 "answer": false, 193 "justification": "The full list of 159 initial search results, individual data extraction forms, and reviewer agreement records are not available. Only the final 12 selected articles are listed in Table 4." 194 }, 195 "data_collection_described": { 196 "applies": true, 197 "answer": true, 198 "justification": "The Methodology section describes databases searched (ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar), keywords used ('digital Wallet* AND qr* AND nfc* AND sms* AND digital payment*'), time period (2017-2021), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 2)." 199 }, 200 "recruitment_methods_described": { 201 "applies": true, 202 "answer": true, 203 "justification": "The paper describes how articles were found: three databases with specific keywords, date range, and language filters. The search process is documented in the Methodology section and Figure 2." 204 }, 205 "data_pipeline_documented": { 206 "applies": true, 207 "answer": false, 208 "justification": "While three filtering phases are described and Figure 2 shows a flowchart, intermediate counts at each stage are not provided. The paper states 159 initial articles and 12 final articles but does not report how many were removed at each phase (article type filtering, abstract/dedup review, independent reader assessment), leaving unexplained jumps." 209 } 210 }, 211 "conflicts_of_interest": { 212 "funding_disclosed": { 213 "applies": true, 214 "answer": true, 215 "justification": "The Acknowledgements section states: 'The authors thank Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for the support in this research.'" 216 }, 217 "affiliations_disclosed": { 218 "applies": true, 219 "answer": true, 220 "justification": "All authors are listed as affiliated with the Department of Electrical, Electronics & Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia." 221 }, 222 "funder_independent_of_outcome": { 223 "applies": true, 224 "answer": true, 225 "justification": "Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia is an academic institution with no financial stake in whether QR, NFC, or SMS is recommended as the best delivery technology." 226 }, 227 "financial_interests_declared": { 228 "applies": true, 229 "answer": true, 230 "justification": "The paper includes a 'Declaration of Competing Interest' section stating 'None.'" 231 } 232 }, 233 "contamination": { 234 "training_cutoff_stated": { 235 "applies": false, 236 "answer": false, 237 "justification": "This is a literature review that does not evaluate any pre-trained model's capability on a benchmark." 238 }, 239 "train_test_overlap_discussed": { 240 "applies": false, 241 "answer": false, 242 "justification": "This is a literature review that does not evaluate any pre-trained model on a benchmark." 243 }, 244 "benchmark_contamination_addressed": { 245 "applies": false, 246 "answer": false, 247 "justification": "This is a literature review that does not evaluate any pre-trained model on a benchmark." 248 } 249 }, 250 "human_studies": { 251 "pre_registered": { 252 "applies": false, 253 "answer": false, 254 "justification": "No human participants in this study; it is a literature review." 255 }, 256 "irb_or_ethics_approval": { 257 "applies": false, 258 "answer": false, 259 "justification": "No human participants; ethics approval is not applicable to a literature review." 260 }, 261 "demographics_reported": { 262 "applies": false, 263 "answer": false, 264 "justification": "No human participants in this literature review." 265 }, 266 "inclusion_exclusion_criteria": { 267 "applies": false, 268 "answer": false, 269 "justification": "No human participants in this literature review." 270 }, 271 "randomization_described": { 272 "applies": false, 273 "answer": false, 274 "justification": "No human participants or experimental conditions in this literature review." 275 }, 276 "blinding_described": { 277 "applies": false, 278 "answer": false, 279 "justification": "No human participants or experimental conditions in this literature review." 280 }, 281 "attrition_reported": { 282 "applies": false, 283 "answer": false, 284 "justification": "No human participants in this literature review." 285 } 286 }, 287 "cost_and_practicality": { 288 "inference_cost_reported": { 289 "applies": false, 290 "answer": false, 291 "justification": "This is a survey paper; no system is proposed or evaluated that would have inference costs." 292 }, 293 "compute_budget_stated": { 294 "applies": false, 295 "answer": false, 296 "justification": "This is a survey paper with no computational experiments." 297 } 298 }, 299 "survey_methodology": { 300 "prisma_or_structured_protocol": { 301 "applies": true, 302 "answer": true, 303 "justification": "The review follows a structured protocol with defined search keywords, three specified databases, date range, inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 2), a multi-phase selection process, three independent reviewers with conflict resolution, and a selection flowchart (Figure 2). While PRISMA is not explicitly referenced, the protocol is structured and reproducible." 304 }, 305 "quality_assessment_of_sources": { 306 "applies": true, 307 "answer": false, 308 "justification": "The review does not assess the methodological quality of the 12 included papers. All sources are treated equally in the synthesis regardless of their study design, sample size, or rigor." 309 }, 310 "publication_bias_discussed": { 311 "applies": true, 312 "answer": false, 313 "justification": "No discussion of publication bias. The review does not consider whether published literature on payment technologies skews toward positive findings, nor does it employ any tests for publication bias." 314 } 315 } 316 }, 317 "claims": [ 318 { 319 "claim": "QR payment is the most popular, secure, fast, and cost-effective delivery technology compared to NFC and SMS.", 320 "evidence": "Based on synthesis of 12 reviewed articles. Table 4 summarizes features across technologies. Multiple papers cited for QR's convenience and fast scanning (Sikri et al. 2019; Webb et al. 2019). Low cost compared to NFC's high setup cost (De Luna et al. 2019; Acker & Murthy 2020).", 321 "supported": "weak" 322 }, 323 { 324 "claim": "QR code is the best suited delivery technology for e-wallets designed in Malaysia.", 325 "evidence": "Based on Malaysian e-wallet market analysis: Touch n Go, GrabPay, Boost, and Maybank QRPay all use QR. NFC has high setup cost and low adaptability (Discussion and Conclusion sections).", 326 "supported": "moderate" 327 }, 328 { 329 "claim": "NFC's limitations in high setup cost and low adaptability outweigh its advantages of convenience and speed.", 330 "evidence": "Multiple reviewed papers report NFC's high setup cost (Acker & Murthy 2020; Olufemi et al. 2020; De Luna et al. 2019), requirement for NFC-enabled devices (Liébana-Cabanillas et al. 2018), and vendors' reluctance to replace POS terminals (Nesse et al. 2017; Gerpott & Meinert 2017).", 331 "supported": "moderate" 332 }, 333 { 334 "claim": "SMS payment usage is declining due to competition from free messaging services and smartphone penetration.", 335 "evidence": "Nesse et al. (2017) is cited for free messaging services outreaching SMS. SMS remains relevant only in unbanked populations with low internet access (De Luna et al. 2019). Only 4 of 12 reviewed papers discuss SMS.", 336 "supported": "weak" 337 }, 338 { 339 "claim": "The convergence of blockchain, AI, IoT and RPA in the proposed adaptive e-wallet system will provide secure transactions and better money management.", 340 "evidence": "Described conceptually in the Discussion section with a three-layer architecture (physical, adaptive, backend). No prototype, implementation, or empirical evaluation is provided.", 341 "supported": "unsupported" 342 } 343 ], 344 "red_flags": [ 345 { 346 "flag": "Very small evidence base", 347 "detail": "Only 12 articles from a highly restrictive AND-based search query ('digital Wallet* AND qr* AND nfc* AND sms* AND digital payment*') requiring all terms to co-occur. This likely missed substantial relevant literature on individual technologies." 348 }, 349 { 350 "flag": "Overclaiming from thin evidence", 351 "detail": "Claims of QR being 'most popular, secure, fast, and cost-effective' are derived from 12 papers, most from a narrow geographic and temporal window. The 'secure' claim in particular is not well-supported — NFC is also described as secure in multiple reviewed papers." 352 }, 353 { 354 "flag": "No quality assessment of sources", 355 "detail": "The 12 reviewed papers are treated with equal weight regardless of their methodology, sample sizes, or rigor. This launders the signal-to-noise ratio of the underlying evidence." 356 }, 357 { 358 "flag": "Geographic bias not acknowledged", 359 "detail": "The recommendation heavily relies on Malaysian market conditions (Touch n Go, GrabPay, government stimulus programs) but the title and abstract present findings as general. The paper itself notes 'this is not the case for users in other countries.'" 360 }, 361 { 362 "flag": "Narrow time window", 363 "detail": "Restricting to 2017-2021 excludes foundational work on payment technologies and misses post-pandemic developments, despite the paper discussing COVID-19 impacts extensively in its introduction." 364 }, 365 { 366 "flag": "Unsupported system proposal", 367 "detail": "The Discussion section proposes a three-layer adaptive e-wallet system integrating blockchain, AI, IoT, and RPA, but provides no prototype, implementation, or empirical evaluation. The proposed system architecture is entirely conceptual." 368 }, 369 { 370 "flag": "No limitations section", 371 "detail": "The paper lacks any discussion of its own methodological limitations, threats to validity, or scope boundaries despite having a narrow search strategy, small sample, and geographic bias." 372 } 373 ], 374 "cited_papers": [ 375 { 376 "title": "A Review of Blockchain in Fintech: Taxonomy, Challenges, and Future Directions", 377 "authors": ["K. Nelaturu", "H. Du", "D.-P. Le"], 378 "year": 2022, 379 "doi": "10.3390/cryptography6020018", 380 "relevance": "Reviews blockchain technology applications in fintech, relevant to AI-adjacent technology infrastructure for financial systems." 381 }, 382 { 383 "title": "How Valuable Is FinTech Innovation?", 384 "authors": ["M. A. Chen", "Q. Wu", "B. Yang"], 385 "year": 2019, 386 "doi": "10.1093/rfs/hhy130", 387 "relevance": "Uses machine learning methods (SVM, Neural Network, Naïve Bayes, KNN, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting) to classify fintech patents, relevant to AI/ML applications in finance." 388 }, 389 { 390 "title": "Robotic process automation and artificial intelligence in industry 4.0–a literature review", 391 "authors": ["J. Ribeiro", "R. Lima", "T. Eckhardt", "S. Paiva"], 392 "year": 2021, 393 "doi": "10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.104", 394 "relevance": "Reviews the intersection of RPA and AI in Industry 4.0, relevant to AI-driven automation in software and business processes." 395 }, 396 { 397 "title": "An Interoperable and Secure E-Wallet Architecture based on Digital Ledger Technology using Blockchain", 398 "authors": ["K. Singh", "N. Singh", "D. S. Kushwaha"], 399 "year": 2018, 400 "doi": "10.1109/GUCON.2018.8674919", 401 "relevance": "Proposes blockchain-based e-wallet architecture, relevant to secure digital payment system design." 402 }, 403 { 404 "title": "Next generation Internet of things in fintech ecosystem", 405 "authors": ["M. Maiti", "U. Ghosh"], 406 "year": 2021, 407 "doi": "10.1109/JIOT.2021.3063494", 408 "relevance": "Examines IoT applications in fintech including AI-powered cashless payment systems like Apple Pay and Amazon Go." 409 }, 410 { 411 "title": "Blockchain in FinTech: A Mapping Study", 412 "authors": ["S. Fernandez-Vazquez", "R. Rosillo", "D. De La Fuente", "P. Priore"], 413 "year": 2019, 414 "doi": "10.3390/su11226366", 415 "relevance": "Systematic mapping study of blockchain in fintech, relevant to understanding technology adoption patterns in financial applications." 416 } 417 ], 418 "engagement_factors": { 419 "practical_relevance": { 420 "score": 1, 421 "justification": "The comparison of payment technologies may be useful for fintech product managers, but provides no immediately usable tool or technique." 422 }, 423 "surprise_contrarian": { 424 "score": 0, 425 "justification": "The finding that QR codes are popular and cost-effective confirms widely known trends in mobile payments, particularly in Southeast Asia." 426 }, 427 "fear_safety": { 428 "score": 0, 429 "justification": "No AI risk or security concerns are raised; the paper mentions security features of payment technologies but does not identify novel threats." 430 }, 431 "drama_conflict": { 432 "score": 0, 433 "justification": "No controversy or conflict angle; this is a straightforward technology comparison review." 434 }, 435 "demo_ability": { 436 "score": 0, 437 "justification": "No code, demo, or tool is provided; the proposed adaptive e-wallet system is entirely conceptual." 438 }, 439 "brand_recognition": { 440 "score": 0, 441 "justification": "Published in a Malaysian engineering journal by university researchers with no connection to major AI labs or well-known fintech companies." 442 } 443 } 444 }