Next Article in Journal
The ESG Disclosure and the Financial Performance of Norwegian Listed Firms
Previous Article in Journal
Economic Growth, Exchange Rate and Remittance Nexus: Evidence from Africa
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Study of Private Equity Rounds of Entrepreneurial Finance in EU: Are Buyout Funds Uninvited Guests for Startup Ecosystems?

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15(6), 236; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15060236
by Hiroyuki Miyamoto *, Cristian Mejia and Yuya Kajikawa
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15(6), 236; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15060236
Submission received: 4 May 2022 / Revised: 21 May 2022 / Accepted: 24 May 2022 / Published: 26 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Business and Entrepreneurship)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled “A Study of Private Equity Rounds of Entrepreneurial Finance in EU: Are Buyout Funds Uninvited Guests for Startup Ecosystems?” deals with a very interesting topic. In general, I appreciate the aims of this work; it is quite interesting and informative to most readers of this field.

However, I have the following comments that hopefully help the authors improve their paper:

  • Overall, the paper lack’s structure and a clear flow. I think that there is sometimes a lack of focus, and in case of a resubmission, the authors should try to make it as precise and compact as possible.
  • Don't use acronyms (IPO) without introduction.
  • I suggest that the authors add a research method diagram. This will provide a snapshot of the research steps followed and will help the reader in a clearer understanding of the paper.
  • In relation to literature review, it would be better if authors can have a table comparing the closely related works on various dimensions and clearly showing the contribution of the paper.
  • What are the limitations of the study in terms of the proposed method, data used, approaches, and/or analysis?
  • The authors should discuss in detail the innovations of this manuscript and the contribution of this research. It isn't clear in this current manuscript.
  • The authors should convince the readers of this journal, that their contribution is so important. These issues deserve a deeper discussion: What are the managerial implications from this work? What are the implications for theory and practice? How decision or policy makers could benefit from this study.
  • As usual a final thorough proof-reading is recommended.

I encourage the author to think along those questions and to develop this work further along those lines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

First comment is that your paper is not in the MDPI format, which creates some difficulties to follow (for instance, the format generates numbers for each lines in order to make comments in the simplest way possible). The main sections declared within the paper are also different than recommendations made to the authors. In the same time is inserted in the Introduction section a paragraph which fully cites an idea from a source (Pitchbook, European Venture Report Q1 2021). In such situations it is recommended that the authors summarize the main information in their own idea. 

In the Introduction section have to declared the paper objectives. Some fragments (mentioned as aims) are found here and there, but they look more like desires without having the usual objective content. Then, the hypotheses stated by the authors have to be introduced in the Materials and Methods section (and extracted from Literature review section), as part of the proposed approach. If I mentioned the hypotheses, there is a phrase that I do not understand (looking carefully at what is behind it): Here, the following two opposing hypotheses arise..... I don't know what the two opposing hypotheses are!

Another recommendation is to rename the Methodoogy section as Materials and Methods section (as a standard section within any scientific paper). Why this? First of all, I think you have to generate in the beginning of this section a workflow for your research, by stating main components and how to approach each component. Secondly, by having this workflow you can list and present in a logical way all the nine tables from the last part of the paper (by including them in the proper paper areas, close to the explanations). By the way, related to table 8 and table 9 you have to re-write them (they are quite difficult to be read and understood). A more technical question concerns the source of inserting the variables declared in table 1. Are they taken from a source (which ...?) or identified by the authors based on ....? Could it also be a limitation of the research the small number of hypotheses? If not, why not?

Continuing with the regular structure of the article, the Conclusions section is necessary. The final part, in addition to the findings, should mention the authors' own contributions to the field, showing how such a study contributes to the development of the field. In addition, I would like to ask you to emphasize the innovative component of the research (is there ?!).

You still have to accomplished, changed and added through the entire paper, but anyway keep in mind that your paper does not have all sections related to the Back Matter: Supplementary Materials, Funding, Acknowledgments, Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest ....

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the previous version. Indeed, the authors tried to improve it, and the main weaknesses are solved.

Thus, in my opinion, the manuscript is recommendable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Following the comments made by the authors on my observations, I find that many of the weaknesses have been removed, and the new version is improved.

Still, it is necessary in the case of figure 1 to place the similar boxes in the same format (and the corresponding writing, in the similar areas, with the same font and size). This is for an easy follow-up of the construction and for a better readability!

Please proceed to the final check.

Back to TopTop