Entrepreneurial-Specific Characteristics and Access to Finance of SMEs in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. As result of surveying the literature, the author/s developed a conceptual framework (Figure 1, p.4) which includes as independent variables age, gender, education, experience, and skills. As opposed to the first four, the “skills” variable is too complex (resultant of many individual skills) to be reduced to a single variable. In addition, the consideration of skills with two options only (yes=1=skilled; no=0=unskilled) is an over-simplification. An explanation is needed.
2. Objectives of the study (p.2, rows 68-74) should be more clearly identified and listed (g. O1, O2, etc.)
3. The “variables description” (Table 1) does not consider all reasonably possible “options/categories” (g. ages higher than 60; experience higher than 30 years – they do not qualify for loans?). This issue should be addressed.
4. The variables skills and education, skills and age, experience and age were considered independent from each other. Are they? If they are not, will the results of the study be altered? This issue has to be addressed.
5. What is the “sector of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan” – a city, region, province? It should be plainly explained upfront. So it should be described as far as other key-features (population, number of SMEs, etc.)
6. Ultimately, which are the reasons for choosing Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as location of the study?
7. The abbreviation MSMEs: stands for what? All abbreviations used should be explained upfront, at their first appearance.
8. It is strongly recommended that authors should highlight their original contribution – as compared to the state-of-the-art literature.
9.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I liked the idea as it has three potential theoretical contributions, in terms of content, context and approach. Nevertheless, there are some points to be considered to proceed further:

First of all, please make your abstract attractive to readers (simple sentences without any repetition) and include 2-3 sentences ready to be cited exactly as they are. In 1 paragraph, your abstract should tell the readers why the study is important (maximum 25% of the text), what you did, i.e. your methodology (maximum 25% of the text), and what you found, i.e. main research results and their major implications (50% of the text). This is very important to promote your work because of the growing trend that authors use Google search to find and cite papers based on the abstract (instead of reading the full paper).

Secondly, please elaborate on "what is the specific research stream you have found on the "Sustainability" that can include your contribution? how does the paper push the research forward?". Please, be more explicit on this issue.

Thirdly, please provide more information on the context of your study. I would like to better understand the context of your empirical work. You might add the historical trends of entrepreneurship in Pakistan.

Fourthly, please improve the research method, using the following reference: Dana, L. P., & Dana, T. E. (2005). Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(1), 79-88.

Fifthly, the literature needs revision. The following references could be useful:

Muhammad, N., McElwee, G., & Dana, L. P. (2017). Barriers to the development and progress of entrepreneurship in rural Pakistan. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(2), 279-295. Rahman, M. M., Muhammad, N., & Dana, L. P. (2020). A comparative study of SME policies: Bangladesh and Pakistan. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 28(02), 93-120. Salamzadeh, A., Farjadian, A. A., Amirabadi, M., & Modarresi, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial characteristics: insights from undergraduate students in Iran. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 21(2), 165-182.   Sixthly, please add the source of Figure 1. If it is the author's elaboration, please specify.   Seventhly, "5. Discussions and Conclusions" section needs major revision. It should clarify your theoretical contribution. Do not just enlist a series of references that are in line with your research. Instead, make single comparisons and in this way, try to highlight your theoretical contribution.   Last but not least is to highlight the limitations and implications. As the hypotheses are simplistic, you should provide significant information which could clarify your contribution.

All this said, I find the thrust of your paper interesting and hope you will be able to make the revisions needed to make it publishable. I certainly appreciate your willingness to submit your work to Sustainability.

Best of luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I highly appreciate the reviewed paper. However, I have some suggestions:

1. Please remove the title 1.1 Objectives of the Study and re-write the text/content of this subchapter. It should be shorter, clear and consistent with the aim from the Abstract.
2. The literature in the Introduction and Review sections should be more up-to-date.
3. There is no need to write two hypotheses at each point – one is enough. For readers it is clear that statistical analysis requires the alternative hypotheses.
4. The authors should be more consistent when writing the hypotheses: in H1 and H2 they used the term “owner-manager” but in H3, H4 and H5 “Entrepreneur”. They should choose only one of these terms.
5. As the authors write about “managerial skills”, the same term should be used in H5.
6. In the last section there must be paragraphs about the study limitation and further research. Moreover, the authors must explain how the paper contributes to the science.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the proposed paper has improved. However, a number of issues were not properly addressed - as follows:

1  (former #2) . The issue was not properly addressed because the objectives are not properly defined; there is confusion made between the objectives declared as actions already done (p.3) and what an objective really is (situated in the future).

2 (former #3) The issue was not properly addressed because: (i) The author just repeats what has been done; (ii) the legal age for retirement is not a limitation for being active in business.

3 (former #4) The issue was not properly addressed because: the author continues to make confusion between “how the things really are” and “how the things are considered in the paper”.

4 (former #8) The original contribution as compared to the state-of-the-art-literature should be clearly highlighted.

There are three new recommendations - as result of the newly introduced paragraphs:

5. As far as methodology: it is suggested to explain how the sample of 204 firms was selected out of the total of “2250 units” (p.7).

6. The revised version counts many errors of English grammar (mainly in the newly introduced paragraphs). They have to be fixed.

7. It is strongly recommended to provide solid reasons for qualifying to be considered for publication in the Sustainability journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I am glad to review the revised version. This version is improved to a great extent. There are two final recommendations from my point of view:

First, please shorten the abstract. Second, please ask a native proofreader to check the final draft.

Best of luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Some issues were fairly addressed; however, the last four points were not satisfactorily addressed.

• Original contribution which this research brings, as compared to the state-of-the-art literature in this area of knowledge: the two paragraphs introduced (pages 11-12) and the three paragraphs (section 6.Implications) do not address the recommendation made.
• Methodology: in spite of the details provided, there are still missing elements. The "target population" for the study are those 431 firms and the sample size (204) is calculated accordingly (which is fine, just mention the reference); consequently, the conclusions of the research are applicable to this population of 431 only. This should be made clear across the paper (discussion, implications, limitations).                 In addition, the criteria used for the sample selection (as representativeness, randomness) continue to be missing. This issue is to be clarified, still.

• Yet it is suggested to use the professional services (native English speaker) for proper formulations, expressing the ideas clearly, grammatically correct (use of tenses and punctuation included).
• Arguments to be published in Sustainability: The phrase the author provides is confusing and does not address the issue signaled: "The paper based on entrepreneurial role in promotion and development of SME sector especially in access to bank finance which play a sustainable development in this sector, as the SME sector lacking of funds and resources in Pakistan and hurdles in SME sustainability in the country particularly in KP, Pakistan."

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Compliance Report Round 3:

1. On page 11 & 12 last three paragraphs consists of contribution of the study.
2. Section 6 on page 12 & 13 consists of recommendations and implications.
3. In Methodology section; Incorporated changes as suggested.
4. Incorporated changes as suggested.
5. Incorporated changes as suggested.
6. The paper based on entrepreneurial role in promotion and development of SME sector especially in access to bank finance. If the financing issue has not been resolved by SME, then their operations even not possible. (The paper based on entrepreneurial role in promotion and development of SME sector especially in access to bank finance which play a sustainable development in this sector, as the SME sector lacking of funds and resources in Pakistan and hurdles in SME sustainability in the country particularly in KP, Pakistan). Your suggestions are required how to justify?

Thank you for your support and guidance for the improvement of manuscript and publishing.

Regards,

Authors of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf