A New Multi-Dimensional Framework for Start-Ups Lifespan Assessment Using Bayesian Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I have read your study with interest. 

You did an interesting work. My only comment is to include seminal studies on default risk. These are pivotal to your research, and you have not cited them. Although you are estimating the default of start-ups and not existing firms, to anyone in the finance literature, you need to connect to the established literature of estimating probability of firm (particularly SME) default in general. Here are at least two very important studies, both in leading field journals, which should be studied and connected to your research (currently these studies are not cited):

1. Altman et al. (2022). Revisiting SME default predictors: The Omega Score. Journal of Small Business Management.

2. Altman (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. The Journal of Finance.

In the line 261/262 please correct the error: "It is considered four different periods for a start-up, as summarized in Error! Reference source not found."

The same problem in line 273/274, 349/350, 360/361, etc. throughout the manuscript.

Please provide a ROC curve of your main model. Altman et al. (2022) also provide a standardized way of reporting prediction performance metrics, as well as what is considered good, excellent and outstanding prediction. 

Finally, on firm age and public policy, you should consider the following two studies:

3. Coad, A. (2018). Firm age: a survey. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28 (1), 13-43.

4. Srhoj et al. (2021). Bidding against the odds? The impact evaluation of grants for young micro and small firms during the recession. Small Business Economics, 56(1), 83-103.

I wish the authors best of luck in improving the manuscript. 

Happy New Year.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “A New Multi-dimensional Framework for Start-ups lifespan risk Assessment using BNs” aims at introducing a mechanism to combine general historical information to reduce the cognitive error of expert opinion for a new start-up. The paper is interesting and well-written and provides a useful insight concerning the examined subject.

The following amendments are required before the paper can be published:

1.       Section 2 must be changes to “Literature Review” since it does not concern materials and methods

2.       The examined cases provide interesting and useful information on how the proposed model is applied. However, more information (area of activities, annual revenues etc.) must be provided so as to clarify better the results; the reasons for examining the specific industries for the examined firms must be provided as well

3.       Managerial implications must be provided

4.       In several areas of the paper the automatic references seem not to work; this issue must be fixed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper draws attention to a very interesting research field and subject. Its relevance to the Start-ups risk Assessment makes it even more interesting. Yet, the paper requires major changes as follows:

In the abstract session, I would suggest to better highlight the aim of this research together with its significance

In the introduction section, the author(s) should break down this section into a number of sub-sections. i.e., Research gap, Research aim, Value, and significance

Research gap: In general, a good discussion is noted to present the need for this study. However, there is room to further underpin and support your arguments. Supporting the core arguments related to the research gap based on more recent literature is instrumental to convey the message further related to the core value of your study.

Considering the nascent field of Start-ups risk Assessment, the range of extant literature covered is apt and wide. I would welcome just a few more contemporary works, such as:

“Cash Holdings, Corporate Performance and Viability of Greek SME: Implications for Stakeholder Relationship Management”. EuroMed Journal of Business

"A values framework for measuring the influence of ethics and motivation regarding the performance of employees". Business & Entrepreneurship Journal

"Strategic Sport Sponsorship Management - A Scale Development and Validation”. Journal of Business Research

 

The chosen approach, instrument, and data analysis are well presented

Give more information regarding the choice of the methodology

I thank the author(s) for the opportunity to read this interesting article and I hope that the above recommendations shall assist them in improving  it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

It is with pleasure that I had the opportunity to read the article entitled “A New Multi-dimensional Framework for Start-ups lifespan risk Assessment using BNs”

In my opinion, the article presents some interesting contributions that deserve publication. However, the article needs a thorough revision in order to be published.

Despite the article relevance, there are some shortcomings that should be addressed:

- In the title, the authors must add BNs in full. Thus, please use “Bayesian Networks (BNs)” instead of BNs.

- The introduction is well organized, however it would be important to make a clear identification of the GAP in the literature (e.g., present similar research) and at least one research question.

- One could find two sections with equal names “2. Materials and Methods” and “3. Materials and Methods”. Please revise.

- Please eliminate the word “reference” before the citation. It's unusual.

- From the lines 329 – 337 there are several “Error! Reference source not found”. There are more similar cases (line 397 – 399). Please correct.

- I am concerned about the generalization issue. Could these results be applied to other companies in other geographic areas and different realities?

- The conclusions need to be revised. It should be presented a greater focus on theoretical and managerial contributions, limitations and suggestions for future research.

- It might be useful to present the appendices as supplementary files. This way, the article will have fewer pages.

- The article has no citations from 2022 and few from 2021. More recent articles should be cited.

Positive issues:

- I found Table 1 well-presented and it shows a clear view of the causes of start-up failure.

- I found the presentation of the three different case studies interesting.

I hope that my comments have been helpful and that the authors have the opportunity to present a new, more robust version of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript improved. Few smaller things to fix:

1) Brackets are wrongly used in citing work, e.g. sometimes it should be Altman et al. (2022) and not (Altman et al., 2022).

2) It is not true Altman et al. (2022) used 87 variables, they used in total 164 variables.

Nice work. I suggest accepting the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors performed a serious and honest revision by taking in consideration my comments. I think that this new version of the article presents a much stronger contribution. Congratulations on the work done.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time for reviewing the paper and your constructive comments.

I also believe the papers is much improved now thank to you and other reviewers comments.