Social Entrepreneurship Research: Intellectual Structures and Future Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research needs to be reformatted as there is no data from content based research for many in-text conclusions. Social entrepreneurship as a field is actual; the field review presented deserves a separate research perhaps with the chosen review type to be discussed.

The number of analysis and/or methods suggested (about 11 mentioned) should be structured and explained in their relationship and to the purpose for the research questions and objectives (they seem not to relate to each other).

It seems that the authors made an attempt to analyse publication activity in the field and conclusions about social entrepreneurship research content and schools of thought can not be made based on number and titles of journal rubrics and list of countries. Please consider revising to demonstrate the interrelations of the research questions, analysis methods used; and data obtained. Currently there is research inconsistency.

All Figures in the paper require greater scale or more accurate visualization ; currently they are not readable. Please consider revising.

Please consider revising the title due to the research inconsistency: research quality is attempted to be measured by bibliographic metrics only.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well-structured and able to bring attention to readers. The research questions are well connected and closely related to the topic. It is supported with reliable data collection and result. Appreciated the effort in presenting the data with clear diagrams and tables, which are easy for the readers to understand the research.

Few concerns before moving to publication:

1. Typo: Analisys to Analysis (3.2)
2. More examples around the globe could be taken into reference for exploring further
3. A thorough cross-check of all references is suggested for accuracy and formatting. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to revise this paper. I believe that the manuscript addresses an interesting and relevant topic, and it is generally well-written, with potential to make a nice contribution.

 

I have a few suggestions for the authors:

 

• When you describe the paper of Austin et al you refer to four variables, I think it would be interesting to provide a definition or conceptualization of these 4 variables so the reader can easily understand the exact meaning of them.

 

• Line 129, I suggest you integrate this sentence within a paragraph, either with an adjacent one, or developing it more with additional sentences. Same for all the other sentences that are a single paragraph.

 

• The literature review section gives a bit the impression of being a list of works and definitions mentioned, but without a clear and structured logic. Perhaps the authors could use sub-heading to separate different ideas/perspectives, or in the beginning of the paragraph they could briefly indicate the different perspectives they are going to discuss. Otherwise, from the reader´s perspective, it is complicated to understand which paragraphs are linked to a common idea form those in which something new is introduced (and why).

 

• Perhaps in the limitations you could mention possible research outputs that could not be included (non English language? Other outlets other than articles?). Of course every study has its own limitations and it is impossible to cover everything, and papers are certainly among the most, if not the most, commonly unit of analysis in this kind of analysis, but there is no harm in acknowledging that potential important contributions to the field might also appear in other less conventional research outputs.

 

 

• While the discussion of the results seems fine and accurate, I think the authors should make an effort trying to provide more value to the readers in terms of potential avenues for further research, in terms of topics, theories, methodologies, countries, etc. At the moment too little is mentioned, when it is the arguably most important part of this kind of papers, as it provides a lot of value to readers.

 

I wish the authors luck with their project!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the changes made and the responses provided.

Still there is a clash in stating you have identified research schools and current trends in research based on bibliometric data only. Having statistical data on publications is not enough to state the research school exists or trends are  developing. Please consider revising the place of the tools you are using (11 mentioned) within the objectives you have stated. Thus the title and abstract should deal with the bibliographical tools and their place in research schools and trends analysis. Please consider revising.

Some text from the authors response may be included into publication.

How do RQs in lines 60 -68 relate to research objectives in 216-218?

lines 107 – 115 and 116- 126 are worth to be considered for the review of the current state; the information provided does not seem to relate to RQs in lines 60 -68. New text added may deserve to be published in a separate paper.

Fig 3 still  lacks any numbers ; should the readers judge about the most productive country by the size of the circles? The most productive countries need criteria and information in RQs and abstract.  This part of research may form another valuable publication. Choice of regions may be explained. How does this relate to research schools and trends stated in the abstract?

line 641 What is meant by the systemic review? This one is not mentioned earlier.

It seems the known tools have been used. The authors are recommended to focus on research novelty. In case the authors consider research schools and trends the place and role of bibliometric tools should be specified as this is not enough to make statements offered as conclusions in lines:

line 328 indicative fact - does not seem to be a sustainable conclusion

line 337 does not seem to be a sustainable conclusion

lines 355 the conclusion of knowledge early stage does not seem sustainable as it is not supported with content analysis. This needs qualitative tools.

Fig 4 and 6 have not changed: they do not represent data.

line 448 how historical evolution of social entrepreneurship research was studied? what is meant by historical evolution of social entrepreneurship research?

line 511: the social entrepreneurship stands out for its high quality - does not seem to be a sustainable conclusion. Criteria for research high quality are needed; comparison between research fields was not performed; the authors have selected indexed journals only, not, e.g. conference proceedings. Basing the conclusions on number of publications does not speak for the research quality. Please consider revising.

line 526 Schools of thought are being formed and identified based on research methodology, research content quality, etc. There seems to be inconsistency in this research approach to analyse qualitative notions in research with selected bibliometric data only.

line 560 how gender issue is related to this research and was studied?

Figure 7: does it speak for the content the research is based on? Why is this called a conceptual model?

line 576 Not sustainable conclusion as lack of publications or plenty publications of the same author in high ranking journals may be attributed to different factors.

Please specify research novelty and practical application of the research presented in this paper. Please specify the role and place of bibliometric data in research schools and trends analysis. This will add value to the bibliometric data acquired and provide perspectives for its application.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions which have helped improve the quality of our manuscript.
Best regards