Detecting Female Students Transforming Entrepreneurial Competency, Mindset, and Intention into Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opprtunity o review this manuscript, some comments to make this manuscript better:
Hypothesis, explain the background of each research path as the basis for formulating hypothesis, supported by relevant theories and research
Model fit measures, references are mentioned as the basis for determining critical value
Discussion, explained the role of intervening variables in increasing entrepreneurial intention
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Reviewer’s suggestion
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, some comments to make this manuscript better:
- Hypothesis, explain the background of each research path as the basis for formulating hypothesis, supported by relevant theories and research
Response: We revised the presentation of hypotheses and added supported literature or theories to make it clear. (see page 5)
- Model fit measures, references are mentioned as the basis for determining the critical value
Response: OK.
- Discussion, explained the role of intervening variables in increasing entrepreneurial intention
Response: OK. We added the sentence: “The entrepreneurial mindset could play a crucial role of intervening variables in increasing entrepreneurial intention for the specific group.” (page 12)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article contains significant and interesting material with some news. However, there are some changes you should consider:
1. The gap needs to be further developed and better substantiated with other studies.
2. Research hypotheses must be supported by literature review
3. The methodology needs to be improved. For example: i) Justify the choice to use this methodology? ii) Were the scales used in the questionnaire validated by any author/study? iii) How were the questionnaires applied? iv) What are the sample selection criteria?
4. Implications need to be further developed. This concludes my feedback.
I hope it can be helpful.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Reviewer’s suggestion
The article contains significant and interesting material with some news. However, there are some changes you should consider:
- The gap needs to be further developed and better substantiated with other studies.
Response: The details as on page 2 (lines 69-72) and the first section of page 5.
- Research hypotheses must be supported by literature review
Response: We have revised the text to make it coherent. (See page 5)
- The methodology needs to be improved. For example: i) Justify the choice to use this methodology? ii) Were the scales used in the questionnaire validated by any author/study? iii) How were the questionnaires applied? iv) What are the sample selection criteria?
Response: i) we added a sentence in the beginning of the methodology section (page 5); ii) Cronbach’s alpha and factor analysis for the entrepreneurial competency scale, the mindset scale, and the intention scale are presented in the Instrument section (page 5); iii) & iv) The selected institutions are implemented entrepreneurial programs supported by Ministry of Education. The application and sample selection criteria are presented in the Research Targets and Samples section (page 6).
- Implications need to be further developed. This concludes my feedback. I hope it can be helpful.
Response: We have rewritten the implication section. (See page 14)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I enjoy reading the authors manuscript and they cover an interesting research topic. However, my only concern is the pre-testing of the survey instrument which is not discussed in the paper.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Reviewer’s suggestion
I enjoy reading the authors manuscript and they cover an interesting research topic. However, my only concern is the pre-testing of the survey instrument which is not discussed in the paper.
Response:
We have added the following information for pre-testing of the survey instrument:
“Cronbach’s alpha in the entrepreneurial competency scale, the mindset scale, and the intention scale were 0.850, 0.743, and 0.949, respectively. The reliability analysis of CMI showed Cronbach’s alpha was 0.917 among the 15 items based on the sampling data. With generalized least squares and Varimax with Kaiser normalization rotation method, the rotation sums of squared loadings (% of variance) are 29.673%, 20.301%, and 19.259%. In total, this scale can explain 69.233% of variance”. (page 5)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is interesting from the point of view of the subject. What is unsatisfactory, however, is the fact that the conclusions are based only on the subjective opinions of the surveyed students. The paper also contains minor ontological (defining concepts) shortcomings. Namely, the basic concepts in the article are: "entrepreneurial competency" and "entrepreneurial mindset" (this is evidenced by the title of the paper, keywords, etc.). Despite the fact that certain parts of the article referring to the title and keywords have been separated, the authors do not provide a definition of these terms. For example, the authors wrote that: "Entrepreneurial competency has various meanings in the process of teaching and learning". This is true, nevertheless the authors, for the clarity of the further argument, must provide the definition they chose. The same goes for the separate subsection 2.3- "Entrepreneurial mindset". This section does not specify what the authors understand by this term. They wrote that "entrepreneurial leaders view an entrepreneurial mindset as a way of thinking about business" or "entrepreneurial mindset could be linked to creativity, innovation, and opportunity ...", but they didn’t clarify what exactly they meant by this concept. However, in the case of other concepts important from the point of view of the article, such as Sustainable Entreprenurship or Entrepreneurial Intention, the authors were able to provide a definition of the concept in one sentence (e.g. first sentence of the 2.3 section: "Entrepreneurial intention is the willingness to start a business , either in cooperation with a group of people or individually"). For the sake of clarity, the basic concepts must be precisely defined.
As I mentioned, the weakness of this paper is the fact that the main source of confirmation of the hypotheses is the subjective opinion of a non-representative group of students.
In addition, it is risky to emphasize in several places of the paper that the described issue (entrepreneurship taking into account the geneder, i.e. de facto entrepreneurship among women) is sparse (e.g. the first sentence of Conclusion: "Previous studies have typically addressed entrepreneurship from various fields and without regard to gender"). There is a lot of literature on this topic.
There are some lapses and typos in the paper that need to be corrected (e.g. parsimonios instead parsimonious, etc.).
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Reviewer’s suggestion
- The paper is interesting from the point of view of the subject. What is unsatisfactory, however, is the fact that the conclusions are based only on the subjective opinions of the surveyed students. The paper also contains minor ontological (defining concepts) shortcomings. Namely, the basic concepts in the article are: "entrepreneurial competency" and "entrepreneurial mindset" (this is evidenced by the title of the paper, keywords, etc.). Despite the fact that certain parts of the article referring to the title and keywords have been separated, the authors do not provide a definition of these terms. For example, the authors wrote that: "Entrepreneurial competency has various meanings in the process of teaching and learning". This is true, nevertheless the authors, for the clarity of the further argument, must provide the definition they chose. The same goes for the separate subsection 2.3- "Entrepreneurial mindset". This section does not specify what the authors understand by this term. They wrote that "entrepreneurial leaders view an entrepreneurial mindset as a way of thinking about business" or "entrepreneurial mindset could be linked to creativity, innovation, and opportunity ...", but they didn’t clarify what exactly they meant by this concept. However, in the case of other concepts important from the point of view of the article, such as Sustainable entrepreneurship or Entrepreneurial Intention, the authors were able to provide a definition of the concept in one sentence (e.g. first sentence of the 2.3 section: "Entrepreneurial intention is the willingness to start a business, either in cooperation with a group of people or individually"). For the sake of clarity, the basic concepts must be precisely defined.
Response: We added a new definition of "entrepreneurial competency" and "entrepreneurial mindset" (See page 4).
- As I mentioned, the weakness of this paper is the fact that the main source of confirmation of the hypotheses is the subjective opinion of a non-representative group of students.
Response: The hypotheses section has been revised. (See page 5)
- In addition, it is risky to emphasize in several places of the paper that the described issue (entrepreneurship taking into account the gender, i.e. de facto entrepreneurship among women) is sparse (e.g. the first sentence of Conclusion: "Previous studies have typically addressed entrepreneurship from various fields and without regard to gender"). There is a lot of literature on this topic.
Response: The sentence has been revised.
- There are some lapses and typos in the paper that need to be corrected (e.g. parsimonios instead parsimonious, etc.).
Response: Thanks. We have corrected them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
