The Composition and Operation Mechanism of Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: A Study of Hangzhou Yunqi Town as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and important considering the current times we are in. However, there are several key areas that need more work prior to publication. I have summarized the required changes in the hope that the feedback will be useful to you as you update the paper.

1. A flowchart. should be added to the article to show the research
methodology

2. Much more explanation and interpretations must be added for the result, which is not enough at all.

3. It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before.

4. The authors combine the discussion and conclusion sections, and write both of them separately

5. The authors should ask for the help of a native English-speaking proof-reader because there are some typos and linguistic mistakes that should be fixed.

6. Aside from the aim stated in the title, the research gap and the goals of  the research is not specified which leads to the reader missing the
significance of the research.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, we have revised the article according to your comments.

 

1.A flowchart should be added to the article to show the researchmethodology.

We added a flowchart according to the data collection and processing logic, as shown in Figure2.

2.Much more explanation and interpretations must be added for the result, which is not enough at all.

We increased our interpretation of the results based on the results of the study in section 7. We also referred to relevant literature to substantiate our conclusions.

3.It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before.

We have added a large amount of literature and added a discussion of relevant studies in section 8.1. In addition , we added a review of previous studies in section 2.2.

4.The authors combine the discussion and conclusion sections, and write both of them separately

We have rewritten the Discussion and Conclusion to make them more relevant. We highlight the findings of this paper in the Discussion section. The significance and shortcomings of this paper are highlighted in the Conclusion section.

5.The authors should ask for the help of a native English-speaking proof-reader because there are some typos and linguistic mistakes that should be fixed.

We rechecked the article to avoid as many errors as possible.

6.Aside from the aim stated in the title, the research gap and the goals of  the research is not specified which leads to the reader missing thesignificance of the research.

To make the purpose of the article more obvious, we present the shortcomings of the existing studies and the purpose of this study at the end of section 1. The significance of this study is presented in sections 8.1 and 8.2.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper lacks a better systematic literature review, because the proposal is based on to few authors. I recommend a SLR to be performed.

In spite the research method is accepted, using just one case study make it not relevant for conclusions. It will need more case studies so the authors can compare amongst them and draw soundly conclusions.

Author Response

1.This paper lacks a better systematic literature review because the proposal is based on too few authors. I recommend an SLR to be performed.

In the second part of the article, we reviewed the vast majority of the literature on the research topic. To prevent any literature omissions, we have supplemented the relevant literature in section 2.2 based on the comments of the reviewers.

2.In spite of the research method is accepted, using just one case study make it not relevant for conclusions. It will need more case studies so the authors can compare amongst them and draw soundly conclusions.

Frankly, there are some general problems with single case studies. However, we strive to rely on the integrity and diversity of the data to ensure that the conclusions are reliable. In the future, we will also look at DEE in other regions and other industries to validate this study.

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the invitation to review the article "The composition and operation mechanism of digital entrepreneurial ecosystem: A study from China," which I believe addresses a very interesting topic that requires discussion.

The paper is well-written and has an interesting contribution. But I think it has the following shortcomings that the authors should address.

The data is collected from different sources, but there is no systematic process to treat the information. Is there a possibility that some sources were left out because of a bias used by the authors? The authors should improve the methodological presentation.

This situation makes the presentation of the following sections 5 and 6 lack rigor. Section 5 has no references, and section 6 has only one, which means that it is a judgment that the authors have created based on their vision. The authors' background that could support the construction of their decisions is not indicated. This should be improved, both the methodological rigor and the structure of the results. 

A period is missing in line 54

English is not my language, but I have seen some minor errors.

Author Response

1. The data is collected from different sources, but there is no systematic process to treat the information. Is there a possibility that some sources were left out because of a bias used by the authors? The authors should improve the methodological presentation.

The data presentation has been added to section 3.1 and a flow chart of the data processing has been added

2. This situation makes the presentation of the following sections 5 and 6 lack rigor. Section 5 has no references, and section 6 has only one, which means that it is a judgment that the authors have created based on their vision. The authors' background that could support the construction of their decisions is not indicated. This should be improved, both the methodological rigor and the structure of the results.

Section 5 presents the authors' conclusions from the field research and interviews, as well as a description of the case. Therefore, there are no detailed references to illustrate it. However, we have revised and added the corresponding literature to Section 6.

In addition to this, we have added research findings in Section 6 to ensure the reliability of the research conclusions and cited extensively the literature that can be argued.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks to the authors for the interesting and relevant article. The
authors examined in detail the types of entrepreneurial systems,
analyzed the mechanism of formation and development of entrepreneurial
ecosystems, forms of ecosystem symbioses development. At the same time,
the article is based on the analysis of 47 sources. The author's
approaches to the analysis and evaluation of symbioses from the
perspective of ecosystem life cycles are particularly interesting.

The comments on the article are rather advisory:

P.172 – the authors talk about the kernel of the DEE. I would like to
clarify what exactly the authors mean by kernel of the DEE? How is the
formation of the kernel of the DEE going and what is its role at all
stages of the LC?
P. 475 – the authors write that "The evolution of DEE has obvious
self-organizing characteristics". What do the authors mean by
self-organizing? And is it possible to discuss the self-organizing
ecosystems, if further (p. 476) the ayhors write about "the leading role
of the government as the creator of DEE is very significant"? Can actors
self-organize into an entrepreneurial ecosystem without the
participation of the state?
The entrepreneurial ecosystem in the article is, first of all, an
association of startups. Do the authors plan to analyze the formation of
entrepreneurial ecosystems in other areas? For example, in tourism or
the service sector? Do the authors plan to develop their research
through the assessment of the maturity of symbioses? Are there plans to
further evaluate the stages of the ecosystem LC through the LC of
projects and LC of ecosystem actors? If such areas of further research
are planned, then they could be reflected in the section of future
research.
I believe that the article has done at a high level and may be published
in Sustainability journal . I wish the authors success in the further
development of this topic.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, we have revised the article according to your comments.

1. the authors talk about the kernel of the DEE. I would like to clarify what exactly the authors mean by the kernel of the DEE. How is the formation of the kernel of the DEE going and what is its role at all stages of the LC?

The concepts at the core of DEE we add in the article. The core of the DEE is that digital subjects realize digital entrepreneurship and development through symbiotic relationships (Elia et al., 2020). To better understand the core and the stage of DEE, we added Figure 5.

2. the authors write that "The evolution of DEE has obvious self-organizing characteristics". What do the authors mean by self-organizing? And is it possible to discuss the self-organizing ecosystems, if further (p. 476) the authors write about "the leading role of the government as the creator of DEE is very significant"? Can actors self-organize into an entrepreneurial ecosystem without the participation of the state?

Self-organization is a manifestation of the system's transition from disorder to order (Odum, 1988). The self-organization characteristic of the DEE is reflected in the digital subjects responding to external shocks, working together, and adjusting their strategies. From the perspective of digital subjects, self-organization is reflected in the process from government-led to entrepreneur-led.

What is more, we believe that self-organization is an important feature of the digital startup ecosystem. Even without the involvement of the state, digital startups can still self-organize into an ecosystem. Research is available to argue for this (Hoetker et al., 2009);(Clarysse et al., 2014).

4. The entrepreneurial ecosystem in the article is, first of all, an association of startups. Do the authors plan to analyze the formation of entrepreneurial ecosystems in other areas? For example, in tourism another service sector? Do the authors plan to develop their research through the assessment of the maturity of symbioses? Are there plans to further evaluate the stages of the ecosystem LC through the LC of projects and the LC of ecosystem actors? If such areas of further research are planned, then they could be reflected in the section of future research.

Thank you for your recognition of our research. In the future, we will also analyze the digital entrepreneurship ecosystem in other regions. And we have added to it in Section 8.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

 Thank the authors for the effort to improve the scope. I am satisfied with the answers.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewers for your valuable comments
We asked native English scholars to revise the language style and carefully examine the spelling of symbols and words.