A Study on the Impact of Boundary-Spanning Search on the Sustainable Development Performance of Technology Start-Ups
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for the opportunity to review yours paper. I've found it as interesting and actual, but I have some doubts abut the structure and the methodology.
I suggest you to consider the following remarks.
1) "2. Theoretical and hypothesis" - I suggest "Theoretical background and hypothesis development"
2) Theoretical background could be better prepared. I suggest you to add a paragraph (in the Theoretical background and hypothesis development section before paragraf 2.1.) about the method which you used to select and analyse the literature, for example a systematic literature review. You should inform what databases you had analysed (eg. WoS, Scopus); what a strategy of search you followed. As an example of article which are based on SLR you can analyse:
a) Zastempowski, M. What Shapes Innovation Capability in Micro-Enterprises? New-to-the-Market Product and Process Perspective. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/ joitmc8010059
b) Mendoza-Silva, A. Innovation capability: A systematic literature review. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2019-0263
c) Dziallas M., Blind K., Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis, Technovation 80–81 (2019) 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.005
3) Conceptual model - I suggest you to add hypotheses and correct the graphics form (there are some unnecessary lines numbers).
4) "3.1 Sample selection and data collection" - you should provide the precise details abut the sample selection. What about the sample representativeness (whole population, standard error, level of significance, share of fraction etc.)?
5) I suggested you to present detail information about the validated scales you had used in research (for each construct) in the Appendix.
Author Response
Please check the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled “A Study on the Impact of Boundary-spanning search on the Sustainable Performance of Technology Start-ups ” brings a good topic that is sustainable development in startups but fails to have a confusing text, since its introduction. It is confusing and does not bring the relevance or justification of the study.
Some starting points for improvement:
Point 1. Summary. The abstract needs to be simplified to a language more accessible to the lay reader. The reader's interest needs to be aroused at this point, along with the relevance of the research, justification, the methodologies used and a brief summary of the results.
Point 2. Lines 26 and 27. Explain what these terms would be for a lay reader.
"Driven by the compound of the dual-innovation strategy and the innovation-driven development strategy..."
Point 3. Line 100 and 101. Explain the meaning of the term " Boundary-spanning search ".
Point 4. Line 140. " Ambidextrous Learning" better explain this concept.
Authors need to simplify the speech so that a lay reader, who is not in the area of innovation, can understand the article.
Point 5. Lines 296 to 299. The article has no relationship between the research idea, methodologies, hypotheses and the summary shown.
Point 6. Item 3.1. Has the research been authorized by any research body and does it comply with the Helsinki Protocol? Where is the approval of the research carried out.
Point 7. Line 335. Likert Scale . How was Cronbach's alpha used in the research and was it supported by the authors? What index did you find? How many questions were asked for the index meeting?
Point 8. Line 337. How was the scale of Laursen performed and how does it work? Detail in the methodology process.
Point 9. Line 342. What is Ambidextrous Learning? Detail in the methodology process?
Author Response
PLease check the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article provides a good overview of the research in some economic sectors in China, however, it still needs adjustments in the summary and conclusions.
The reviewer indicated in the previous version, the items that should be highlighted in the abstract, but they have not yet been met by the authors, please check again.
The scientific research methodology for the literature review is also not coherent, as it does not explain how it was methodologically carried out.
The survey with the questionnaires (research tool) was carried out from what period to what period? Are there descriptive statistics of the target population? Examples: gender, age, salary range, position held, among other additional information that can be statistically demonstrated ?
After the "Table2 Measures and validation ." should include a sentence or a paragraph talking about the importance of Crombach 's Alpha and demonstrating what impact the reliability of the sample brings to each verified index.
Finally, the authors need to correlate the text with models of disruptive innovation and incremental innovation, mainly focusing on the Chinese innovation environment. Authors such as Nonaka and Takeuchi can help bring insights to apply the knowledge spiral in these companies, in this way, the authors bring an oriental Japanese view to enrich the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made a significant improvement in the article but still need to make small format adjustments, with a review of citations and sentences after making tables to explain them to lay authors. For example, the quote by Nonaka and Takeuchi in lines 525 and 526 is not numbered properly and it is possible that there are new wrong numberings, authors should review all citations.
In the introduction, the authors also do not mention the methodology used. Including a line on the research methodology can help readers better understand the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
