Sustainable Entrepreneurship as a Field of Knowledge: Analyzing the Global South

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Having gone through this study, I see potential in it. However, the manuscript has a long way to go before being accepted for publication. My specific concerns as listed below,

1. Please define Global North and Global South at the beginning of the paper so that the readers begin with the context in the mind. Some readers may not be familiar with the term.

2. Where has been Australia added. The country is in the same region as many 'Global South' Countries but is often considered a part of Global North?

3. While I find the analysis interesting, a deep dive into the topics can be done. For example Why the themes explored by the Global South appear to differ from the Global North. Also explain a brief overview of the topics explored. The current analysis is only presents a table.

4. The findings regarding the collaborations need to be revisited. In the figure 13 I can clearly see the lines originating from US going to both China and India. Further, Brazil is connected to Europe. The collaboration around Two most populous countries in Global South seem very busy. The authors should revisit the assertions made in finding 6. The networks in figure 15 also challenge the finding. Please rethink and revise.

5. There should also be analysis on the impact of scholarship of Global North on the Scholarship of Global South. A citation Analysis  can be conducted. This  should be done to revisit finding 6.

6. There are so many types of analysis conducted but none are dived into in detail. This makes paper very confusing, The authors should pick one analysis as 'main' one with other supporting it.

7. The manuscript needs proof reading. One example is

(i) There is a closing parenthesis in second line of the Introduction section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The article takes up an interesting topic. It is a literature study, which always gives great generalizations. 
Summary: well organized; meets the requirements that are needed for this topic.

Introduction: Contextualizes the study theme, presents data to support the study's justification and purpose.

Materials and Methods: Although it is a review article, it presents this topic in detail, which greatly enriches the article.

VOSviewer and biblioshiny software are used.

This topic is extensive and confuse, must be clarifyed. Additionally, there are some references missing.

Results: The presentation of results need to be presented in a more clear  and objective way. I suggest to shorten this part and elaborate more on the significance of the clusters for the sustainable entrepreneurship production.

The figures and tables labels don't match the word template. I suggest downloading the sustainability template and follow the guidelines in it.

Discussion: The organization of the contents provide a good foundation but the english needs revision.

Conclusions: could better depict the studies that could be originated from this study in the future.

In general, I suggest a major revision to this submission.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Major Comments:

The theme of the manuscript is appropriate, important and highly relevant.

The contributions of this manuscript, namely the quality of the analysis and evidence, the quality of the organization and presentation and the contribution to theory and practice, are good.

The article is very well written, the text is concise and comprehensive.

The article is well structured, and the theme is well justified.

The bibliometric analysis developed is very complete and very well founded throughout the text.

The objectives are clear and concise.

The theme developed is suitable for the Journal Sustainability.

Suggested Revisions:

The reviewer's decision is to publish the manuscript with minor revisions, such as:

(1) In the methodology:

- justify the choice of WoS database for data extraction. Why WoS and not another(s)? - Justify the importance of bibliometric analysis in the context of sustainable entrepreneurship. What allows bibliometric analysis?

- Why did the authors choose to include only documents of the “article” type and the “Business or Management” area. Justify the reason for not including other important areas such as “environmental sciences” and “environmental studies” or others. Could this choice result in a limitation of this study?

- Do reference to the version of the VOSviewer software.

(2) In the results: - insert the label values in the figures (fig 2, 3, 5)

- in the subsection “4.2.3 Co-word analysis”, justify the criteria “the minimum number of occurrences of 10 for the global South” and “20 for the global North”.

(3) In the conclusion, mention the limitations of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The literature review is well structured, but the bibliography must be updated with bibliographic sources from the last years (2019-2022). From a number of 90 references, only 7 are from last three years, which is too little.

2. It is not clear from the text what the objectives of the study are. What are the  assumed hypothesis?? I think that the objectives and the hypothesis of the article must be rewritten.

3. Discussions and conclusions part must also be improved with personal ideas. It is well know the existence of big differences between Global North and Global South, but what are the measures to reduce these gaps in the opinion of the authors ?!

 Overall, it is a good study idea, but it needs to be improved with other original means and personal approaches.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments and i can now recommends the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Thank you. We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Your article has improved a lot, however there are still a few aspects to be taken into account:

a) Methodology: The paragraph before Fig 1, requires bibliographic references for VOSViewer

b) "Figure 1. Research process stages "- Was it adapted from an author or own elaboration?

c) WoS its from clarivate and you doesn't mentioned 

Best Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. It is not explained clearly and in detail whyfFrom a number of 90 references, only 7 are from last three years.

Why "these are thrown by the system in the bibliometric analyses" it was a is it a random or directed sampling ?!

2. The author confuses the aims and objectives of the article.

3. The recommendation "Discussions and conclusions part must also be improved with personal ideas" it was not realized.

4. The author explains "Done. We made adjustments to this section" but there are no important changes in the text.

The changes made by the author are insignificant. The article needs to be improved with other original means and personal approaches.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

-