Avalilação PREreview Estruturada de Strengthening Consumer Protection Through Enhanced Risk Governance in Financial Services

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction outlines how digital transformation in financial services exposes consumers to emerging risks which traditional protection mechanisms may not address. It highlights need for proactive risk governance, then presents clear objectives aimed at evaluating current approaches, exploring technological and regulatory roles. However, the research gap is not brought out clearly from the previous studies reviewed. Otherwise, it weakens the justification of the study objectives.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

While the study adopts qualitative conceptual design which is really appropriate for an emerging research area, there is no clear selection criteria for the sources used. Again, there is no clear analytical framework presented which may make replicability impossible.For example; no coding scheme or comparative matrix. It does not specify how themes were synthesized. In general the methodology lack analytical rigor.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

This is a conceptual paper which does not present primary empirical data. However, the conclusions are not directly supported by data. Though the study offers thoughtful insights on consumer protection, technology, and governance frameworks, there is limited empirical evidence and case studies to substantiate the claims made in the discussion and conclusion sections.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly inappropriate or unclear

The study does not have any tables, figures, graphs, or even pictures for visual effect.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat unclearly

There is no clear evidence upon which the author bases his/her discussion.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

While the study remains insightful, at its current state, a lot of improvent ought to be done for it to effectively contribute to academic or scientific knowledge.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

The language used depicts scientific tone, no grammatical concerns.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.