Application of Item Response Theory (IRT)-Graded Response Model (GRM) to Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Scale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the pšossiblity to review this interesting article.

My suggestions for improvements are:

1. What are the abbreviations in the abstract: IRT, CFI, TLI, RMSE and SRMR? When the abbreviation arises for the first time it should be stated in the word and abbreviation in the brackets.
2. I do not feel that the title is suitable, maybe change at least one word: response
3. Most important: I would like to see the final version of the paper before I can read it. There are some colours between the text and some different paragraphs and layouts in the conclusions which lead me that this is not the final version of the paper
4. authors, please ask yourself, do we really need so many figures?

When you upload the correct paper, I will go through it.

Author Response

hank you for the possibility to review this interesting article.

My suggestions for improvements are:

1. What are the abbreviations in the abstract: IRT, CFI, TLI, RMSE and SRMR? When
2. the abbreviation arises for the first time it should be stated in the word and abbreviation in the brackets.

 

Suggestion incorporated in the (page 1) in the abstract

 

1. I do not feel that the title is suitable, maybe change at least one word: response

 

Suggestion incorporated in the (Page 1)

 

 

1. Most important: I would like to see the final version of the paper before I can read it. There are some colours between the text and some different paragraphs and layouts in the conclusions which lead me that this is not the final version of the paper

 

I will send the final version of the paper as soon as possible

 

 

1. authors, please ask yourself, do we really need so many figures?

 

Item response theory basically deals with each item and we have test each item, as all items and their figures are part of the analysis without it we can do analysis many reference papers have included to support this justification.

 

When you upload the correct paper, I will go through it.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

the paper is interesting and the methodology here used is rigorous. 

please define what you mean with IRT at the starting page, when you use the term for the first time.

explain better the contribution of  your research and the literature gap considered.

what you mean wit entreprenuerial ecosystem? what's the definition and its main actors and pillars?

Why you focus on developing countries and which is the specificity compared to developed ones?

implications for theory and practice are not  provided. 

Author Response

• the paper is interesting, and the methodology here used is rigorous. 

Thank you very much indeed

• please define what you mean with IRT at the starting page, when you use the term for the first time.

Added suggestion at line 47-52

• explain better the contribution of your research and the literature gap considered.

 

Added suggestion at line 122-137

 

• what you mean wit entrepreneurial ecosystem? what's the definition and its main actors and pillars?

Added suggestion at line 52-61

 

• Why you focus on developing countries, and which is the specificity compared to developed ones?

Added suggestion at line 69-74.

•  
• implications for theory and practice are not provided. 

Added suggestion at line 428-440.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors should improve:

• This paper is chaotic - only at the end you can get an idea of what the authors are actually analyzing: IRT or EE. If I interpret this correctly, the main analyzed quantity is EE, and IRT is the research method used. From this point of view, the literature review (in this case in the introduction) should refer to aspects related to EE, supplemented with methods of analyzing this variable. It is completely inappropriate to not include the theoretical background on the EE variable that was examined in Results. I suggest adding a Literature review section, where the analyzed aspects related to EE will be theoretically discussed.
• The title of the paper should be better worded (2 times of "response" word using)
• In abstract the major aspects of the entire paper should be presented including: the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated (EE!); the basic design of the study; major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, a brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions;
• In Introduction - a research gap should be clearly indicated, and  what is novel and why it is significant.
• Discussion and Conclusion should contain explanation how the research has created knowledge or at least moved the body of knowledge forward; provide a confrontation of the achieved results with previously published papers, authors' opinion of established differences, their attitude to the results. Also indicate advantages, limitations, and possible applications of the research! The results should be presented in Results section - there is no need to repaet them in Discussion (they need to be discussed).
• There are many errors in spelling and in the required format.

Author Response

• This paper is chaotic - only at the end you can get an idea of what the authors are actually analyzing: IRT or EE. If I interpret this correctly, the main analyzed quantity is EE, and IRT is the research method used. From this point of view, the literature review (in this case in the introduction) should refer to aspects related to EE, supplemented with methods of analyzing this variable. It is completely inappropriate to not include the theoretical background on the EE variable that was examined in Results. I suggest adding a Literature review section, where the analyzed aspects related to EE will be theoretically discussed.

• The literature Review section is given, and studies related to EE are added line at 73.

 

• The title of the paper should be better worded (2 times of "response" word using)

 

The title of the paper is revised

 

• In abstract the major aspects of the entire paper should be presented including: the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated (EE!); the basic design of the study; major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, a brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions;

 

Suggestions incorporate in the Abstract lines 12-29

 

• In Introduction - a research gap should be clearly indicated, and what is novel and why it is significant.

 

Suggestions incorporate lines 46-64.

 

• Discussion and Conclusion should contain explanation how the research has created knowledge or at least moved the body of knowledge forward; provide a confrontation of the achieved results with previously published papers, authors' opinion of established differences, their attitude to the results. Also indicate advantages, limitations, and possible applications of the research! The results should be presented in Results section - there is no need to repaet them in Discussion (they need to be discussed).

 

Limitations are given at lines 379-463.

• There are many errors in spelling and in the required format.

The spellings and corrections have been rectified Throughout the document.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the possibility to re-review this article. My proposal to improve the paper are:

1. the abstract should state on its own. There are still some misunderstandings that the reader could not understand, like between lines 25 and 27, what is pol5? mar5? etc., what is EE at the beginning of the abstract
2. during the paper, it is not known what are abbreviations of variables are. Explicitly state them in a data section under section 2. Methods and Data
3. in line 218, why ki+1. Please explain the meaning of the symbol
4. split line 69 into next paragraph
5. line 137, what is number 12. Add the meaning
6. line 112, add citation which developed countries
7. explain the abbreviation SPPS
8. under each table insert a note about the meaning of the abbreviations of the variables, therefore connect Annex A with the data and notes
9. own author? line 400. 
10. scary: line: 461. How can someone know what is this?
11. 508, IRT already explained. Why once again
12. what is the main research question? Add at the beginning
13. The main finding is? Add at the end.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, point by point response is given in the word document.

 

Thanks & Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

• Limitations, and possible applications of the research are still poorly described and should be developed. Authors should more refer to their research, and not to the IRT method in general.
• The authors avoid a clear declaration of how the research has moved the body of knowledge forward - it should be clearly indicated in the Discussion.

Author Response

Point by point response is given in the attached word document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I do not have any further comments, except that abbreviations of variables could be more readable. Therefore "polish" the paper.

 

Author Response

• Spelling mistakes

 

Spelling mistakes have been thoroughly checked and rectified in the documents

• do not have any further comments, except those abbreviations of variables could be more readable. Therefore "polish" the paper.

Abbreviations of variables have been rechecked and corrected again and document have checked again, and minor corrections have rectified

Author Response File: Author Response.docx