Digital Transformation in Entrepreneurship Education: The Use of a Digital Tool KABADA and Entrepreneurial Intention of Generation Z

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Referee report on "Digital transformation in entrepreneurship education: analysis of the results of the use of a digital tool KABADA on entrepreneurial intention of generation Z"

This paper belongs to the growing recent literature on the digital transformation of the education system. This topic is interesting and such work is timely and immediately attracts attention. However I have a serious doubt regarding this paper’s particular contribution.  The paper provides a large and detailed review of the relevant (and not so relevant) literature, but I fail to see the value added of the authors’ own contribution. In their own part of work, they formulate 2 main hypotheses and 7 sub-hypotheses and claim to support both main hypotheses and one of the seven sub-hypotheses. The two main hypotheses that the authors claim to accept – H1 and H2 – are rather trivial. Moreover, these findings may simply result from the self-selection of the students – the common problem in such kind of studies – that the authors even do not mention. I also have a serious doubt regarding the validity of their technique. Therefore I’m quite skeptical regarding this particular contribution. Some of my comments are below.

1. Let me start from the very abstract: The first half of the text in the Abstract is absolutely unrelated to the Abstract and should be relegated to the Intro, while the Abstract itself should start from line 19.

2. Literature review is rather too long is not always relevant for the topic of this study.

3. Figure 1: I fail to see the particular contribution of this figure.

4. Section 3 is too broad. I would recommend removing the broad description of the “theory of generations” as it doesn’t contribute much to the topic of the paper (one short paragraph on this theory will be enough) and start this section immediately from “generation Z”. It will also help to reduce slightly the number of citations, which is currently too long (131 items).

5. Data and methodology Section is written very badly. For example, Paragraph 1 of this section (lines 410 – 420) looks like an explanation in a kindergarten and Paragraph 3 (lines 439 – 464) is absolutely redundant.

6. In the description of their sample, the authors do not clarify how they selected their subjects. Currently, it looks that they simply arbitrarily chose 808 respondents from three groups of countries that are very different: 2 countries from the former Soviet Union (Latvia and Lithuania), two countries from the former Soviet Block (Czech Republic and Slovakia), and three Southern European countries without any Soviet past. Given their different past, the perceptions of people from these three groups of countries regarding entrepreneurship and, therefore the intentions to become entrepreneurs might be conceptually different – the issue that the authors even do not mention.

7. The particular technique the authors use is not convincing. I would strongly recommend them before writing papers to learn more about the experiments in general. For example, they could consult a few recent articles on experiments, say, from the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

8. Finally, as the authors write in their very last paragraph (lines 693 – 696), “Given the demographically and geographically limited scope of the research (Generation Z, Central and Eastern Europe, Southern Europe) an in-depth study of this topic would be necessary, including a wider geographical spread, age groups and other parameters that can influence the research results significantly.” So, go ahead and try to do something real!

Moderate editing of English language is requiered.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments, we have followed your useful suggestions and improved the article. Please find below our feedback on how comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the article.

On behalf of the authors,

Kristaps Lesinskis

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is relevant and the approach taken is innovative enough to be published. The work involves several countries and has been worked on over the years. However, the organization of the paper is a bit confusing. The discussion of the results is also a bit weak. The implications of this study are little explored by the authors.

Improvement suggestions:

1. I recommend the authors to reformulate the beginning of the Introduction section to provide a better contextualization of entrepreneurship education and the use of digital technologies in this process.

2. It is not clear reading the Introduction section the elements of AI that are provided by the KABADA tool.

3. Explain better the difference between the notion of entrepreneurship and digital entrepreneurship.

4. Regarding Generation Z authors state “According to Scholz and Rennig [18], significant differences exist in the profile 75 of Generation Z representatives in different parts of the world, but the most important 76 characteristic of this generation is the usage of IT tools.” This vision is very superficial. Authors talk about it later in the paper but a better vision of Generation Z in the Introduction section should be provided.

5. The objectives of this study are clear in lines 86 and next. However, the flow must be improved. I recommend the authors to better articulate the information. Instead of use three paragraphs, the authors can use a single paragraph and provide a better connection between several sentences.

6. Figure 1 is necessarily incomplete. It would be important to state that the examples provided in Figure 1 are relevant but don’t provide a complete vision.

7. Authors state “The main features of AI can be highlighted in the following definitions [72]:” If the intention is to provide definitions, therefore integral citation model must be used.

8. Deep learning is introduced in Figure 1 but not in the text.

9. Please clarify the AI techniques adopted in KABADA.

10. It is not clear how KABADA is related to big data. Big data has different characteristics that don’t seem to be totally explored in KABADA (or it is not presented).

11. Authors note “The size and complexity of Eurostat business statistics data is immense, and the KABADA system has to extract the very precise necessary information from the relevant industry and country.” Please explain how it is implemented in KABADA.

12. Authors note “The largest part of the 468 sample, or 63%, was made up of representatives of Generation Z studying business”. Please characterize better the sample.

13. The region variable only considers two alternatives? Please clarify it.

14. Authors present the research hypothesis in the methodology section. It is not a good approach. Hypothesis should be formulated based in the research gap, before presenting the methodology.

15. Discussion section is relatively weak. Authors could give more importance to discussion if they separate it from the presentation of the results.

16. Authors note “This research, based on the systematic literature review…” However, they don’t perform any systematic literature review. Please reformulate the sentence.

17. Theoretical contributions of this study are not explored.

18. I also recommend the authors to better explore the practical implications and provide more insights regarding policy implications.

19. Authors address the main limitations of their study. However, the future research directions are very superficial. More concrete future research directions should be provided.

20. Please review this declaration “Data Availability Statement: not applicable.” Data should be available if requested. Authors collect quantitative data.

Language quality should be improved mainly in Introduction section. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments, we have followed your useful suggestions and improved the article. Please find below our feedback on how comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the article.

On behalf of the authors,

Kristaps Lesinskis

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

 

This paper deals with digital transformation in entrepreneurship education.

The implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals has increased investments in the education system to create and sustain a culture of innovation in many countries around the world.

Corporate education is and will continue to undergo a process of digital transformation. New digital technologies make it possible to improve education significantly.

Educating for entrepreneurship helps to train a new generation of entrepreneurs, an important element in the sustainable development of the economy.

Generation Z has led to the use of various digital tools in the educational process.

This paper investigates the impact of the use of the digital tool KABADA in entrepreneurship education of Generation Z by analyzing an experiment conducted in some European countries.

In addition, a literature review on the topic and a statistical analysis of the data was conducted, testing the KABADA tool in Generation Z. The results highlight how the KABADA digital tool is significant within the process of teaching about entrepreneurial intention in Generation Z.

The paper is well written and interesting, and it is suitable for this journal.

However, it could be further enhanced, following the comments below.

Given the relevance and complexity of the topic, it is strongly suggested to broaden the analysis of literature. It is suggested to consider the following reference: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4893

In particular, the authors should focus more on which gaps the paper aims to cover and which are the limits of this paper. 

In the conclusions, the innovative contribution of the research should emerge more clearly. 

I encourage the authors to refine their paper to make it available for publication in the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments, we have followed your useful suggestions and improved the article. Please find below our feedback on how comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the article.

On behalf of the authors,

Kristaps Lesinskis

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

‘Digital transformation in entrepreneurship education: analysis of the results of the use of a digital tool KABADA on entrepreneurial intention of generation Z’.

 This paper introduces an important topic for sustainability and entrepreneurship studies and fits well in the general purpose of the journal. Following the abstract, the objective of the paper seems to be to ‘investigate the impact of the use of digital tool KABADA in entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention in Generation Z, based on experiment conducted in selected countries of the European Union’.

Despite of the focus of the general purpose of the article, this proposal has many weaknesses: some concepts are not clearly defined, the abstract should be rewritten, the introduction is mainly descriptive, there is no literature review, the methods should be detailed and improved, external validity was not implemented, the conclusion should be completed and completely reframed…

The title of the paper suggests it is quite ambitious as it intends to provide an examination of the ‘impact of the use of a digital tool KABADA in entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention in Generation Z’.

After reading the paper, it is difficult to understand what is the conceptual positioning and the theoretical streams developed in the paper. There is no research question and therefore we cannot link it to the methods and to further discussions.

The abstract should be rewritten and streamlined. The research streams should be indicated and linked to the main question. The main research question should be grounded in the business/entrepreneurship literature. The problem statement described in the abstracts does not help us to understand what the link with the academic literature is. What are the conceptual approaches that will be developed in this paper?. The abstract includes repetitions (avoid) (example: ‘based on experiment conducted in several countries of the European Union’) (lines 21-22 and 26-27). Some parts of the abstract are mainly descriptive (avoid). Some results are highlighted before the presentation of the empirical study. The abstract is unclear about what an ‘experiment’ is. The expression ‘in selected countries of the European Union’ is vague. There are 28 countries in the European Union and the statement is therefore vague.

The abstract is not a ‘general introduction’. The description about the importance of the subject is not adapted. Therefore, starting the abstract with the following statement is not adapted: ‘the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals has increased investment in the education system to create and sustain a culture of innovation in many countries around the world’ (lines 11-13).

In the abstract, the authors indicate that the paper develops ‘a systematic review of the literature on digital transformation and digital tools in entrepreneurship education’. This ambitious goal was not achieved. Only a few rudimentary references were presented in the literature review.

A first broader question related to the main question in the paper is as follows: can we train people to become entrepreneurs ?. Several research streams of the business literature disagree with this idea. See, in particular, Mintzberg and Waters (1985); Gartner (1988); Gartner et al.(1992).

Another question is: what types of entrepreneurs are you refereeing to? (see the typology of Miles and Snow, 1978).

The general introduction advances some broad justifications about digital education and entrepreneurial intention…. Why not to start the paper by introducing the challenges of ‘digital transformation and entrepreneurship intention’ ?. It is not appropriate to start the general introduction with references to results (repeated in line 36, 41).

Some parts of the introduction initiate parts that we expect to see in subsequent sections. For example: an introduction to the literature review (lines 64-72), an anticipation of the results and discussion (lines 93-97).

The introduction includes repetitions (sentence line 36-39, 87-90). The style of some sentences is not adapted (example: ‘the research and its results contain undisputable novelty’… to what extent can we say other researchers in the world did not apply a similar tool to identify similar findings ?. This is a strong statement, difficult to justify).

The presentation of the structure of the paper is confusing. What information will be in Part I, Part II, Part III, etc ?

I recommend an entire rewriting of the General Introduction. Start by indicating the importance of the topic, defining the concepts, the main purpose/goals, a general hypothesis, and presenting the main research streams, the problem statement.

Literature Review

The title of the section is not meaningful. Please use a sounding and clear title describing what we expect to see in the contents of the section.

The concepts should be defined in the general introduction (example: digital transformation, generation Z).

The presentation of the contributions of the different authors in the literature is often descriptive and too general. For example, ‘Alenezi (27) believes that in the present times digital transformation has gained momentum and contemporary higher education institutions have been embracing new technologies….’(lines 142-147). This information can eventually be adapted for a general introduction but it has no value for your literature review (mainly descriptive). As a consequence, the literature reviews as little explanatory potential.

The information presented in Table 1 is mainly descriptive and has little potential. Summarize the different contributions on a table where you will present: the authors, the main problem statement and hypothesis, the methods, and the findings.

Figure 1 does not flow directly from the literature review presented in the section. We expect to see a figure with your own figure connecting the variables explaining digital transformation and entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship intentions.

The information in lines 214 to 249 is mainly descriptive. It has no relevance for the literature review which should be mainly explanatory.

The explanation about what is Generation Z is mainly descriptive. It has little explanatory interest. It should be streamlined and entirely rewritten.

Kabada should be introduced in the section of Data and Methods, not in the literature review.

The literature review is limited and it has little explanatory potential. You need to build an ad-hoc framework linking digital transformation, entrepreneurial education, and entrepreneurship intention. It should be entirely rewritten.

 

Data and Methods

*I do not think the paper addresses the process of entrepreneurship education (line 410).

*The explanation of the different steps of the methods applied is confusing: control/experimental group, survey before and after, the administration of a second questionnaire, how many sessions were organized ?, what questions were repeated and when ?. Please add a figure explaining the flows and steps in your methods.

*You should add a figure explaining the differences between a KABADA workshop and a traditional workshop;

*People understand what a Likert scale is. No need to explain what it is. There is a debate on the literature about the use and measurement of Likert scales ?. Did you consider the distance between the numbers in the scale is metric or psychological ?. The discussion of the different types of scales does not seem appropriate for the purpose of the article. Instead, you should specify what items were included for the measurement of the concepts you intend to assess.

There is no detailed discussion about the constructs applied in the survey and how the instruments in the survey were built. For example, in what way did you measure the ‘intention to became an entrepreneur’ and how it compares to previous studies ? what type of questions did you use ? Did you use incentives in the survey or the answers are only declarative ?

Some expressions are redundant (lines 518-519) (remove).

The discussion is limited. Please refer to findings in previous literature in detail and ultimately compare the findings of your own study with those performing similar studies.

The interest of some sentences is difficult to assess. Example: ‘thirty studies published between 2015 and 2021 comparing learning via digital platforms and learning in digital classrooms were accounted for’ (lines 624(625). What is the interest of this sentence ?. You should include those studies in your literature review. This sentence has no interest for the discussion.

Again, repetitions of goals of the study are not adapted this section [lines (632-633)].

The limitations of the empirical study should be included in the general conclusion (lines 652-662).

 

The general conclusion should start by reminding what the initial problem statement is and the main answers provided by the study.

What are the key theoretical, practical, and methodological contributions of this paper ?

What are the theoretical and methodological limitations of the paper? Nothing is written about the limitations of materials and methods.

Any extensions related to potential new theoretical contributions?

The authors claim having done a ‘systematic literature review’ (page 677). This objective was not achieved. An example of systematic literature review on digital transformation can be found in HANELT et al.(2021), A systematic review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change’ Journal of Management Studies, 58, 5, July.

The general conclusion should be entirely rewritten in order to reflecting the above issues on a more objective and structured manner.

The references included in the paper should be completed and integrated the standards required for publication in the journal. Some of the references are incomplete (lack of publishers,…). Why the reference HAMMODA B. is written in capital letters? The same goes for reference MAVLUTOVA et al. and AKPOVIRORO et al.

*The written English requires major improvements. There are many repetitions. Some expressions are not relevant and/or are not adapted. For example, ‘the authors of the study applied a quasi-experimental method in the empirical part of the study’ (lines 411-412) (repetition, redundant expressions).

Many other parts of the paper require fine tuning. In summary, paper should be entirely rewritten and reconsidered.

The written English requires major improvements. There are many repetitions. Some expressions are not relevant and/or are not adapted.

The style requires should also be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments, we have followed your useful suggestions and improved the article. Please find below our feedback on how comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the article.

On behalf of the authors,

Kristaps Lesinskis

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My first report where I evaluated the paper according to the standards in my field was perhaps too harsh. The revised paper improved significantly relative to the previous version. Now I’m satisfied and have only one minimal suggestion.

To better connect this paper to the general economic context, I would recommend after the last paragraph on Page 3 (line 151) adding the following:

“Moreover, from a general economic perspective, digitalization may further increase the demand for human capital, which has been shown to play a key role in modern economic growth (Galor, 2005; Galor and Moav, 2004; Azarnert, 2010, 2020).”

 References

Galor, O. (2005) From stagnation to growth: Unified growth theory. In Aghion, P., Durlauf, S.N. (eds.) Handbook of Economic Growth Vol. I Part A, 171–293.

Galor, O., Moav, O. (2004) From physical to human capital accumulation: Inequality and the process of development. Review of Economic Studies 71, 1001–1026.

Azarnert, L.V. (2010) Free education, fertility and human capital accumulation. Journal of Population Economics 23, 449–468

Azarnert, L.V. (2020) Health capital provision and human capital accumulation. Oxford Economic Papers 72, 633–650

Stll some moderate editing.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find attached our notes regarding comments of Reviewer 1.

On behalf of our team,

Kristaps Lešinskis

Corresponding author 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered the questions raised. I believe that it would have been preferable to separate the presentation of the results from their discussion. But I also accept the choice made by the authors.  

English language is ok. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2!

Please find our reply to your comments in the file attached!

Best regards,

Kristaps Lesinskis,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

‘Digital transformation in entrepreneurship education: analysis of the results of the use of a digital tool KABADA on entrepreneurial intention of generation Z’.

This paper introduces an important topic for sustainability and entrepreneurship studies and fits well in the general purpose of the journal. Following the abstract, the objective of the paper seems to be to ‘investigate the impact of the use of digital tool KABADA in entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention in Generation Z, based on experiment conducted in selected countries of the European Union’.

Despite of the focus of the general purpose of the article, this proposal has many weaknesses: some concepts are not clearly defined, the abstract should be rewritten, the introduction is mainly descriptive, there is no literature review, the methods should be detailed and improved, external validity was not implemented, the conclusion should be completed and completely reframed…

The title of the paper suggests it is quite ambitious as it intends to provide an examination of the ‘impact of the use of a digital tool KABADA in entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention in Generation Z’. The title should be shortened. The indication of the sub-title ‘analysis of the results’ is rather reductive. It suggests the analysis of the results are less important than the methods (and even the literature review). We expect that you publish a research paper, not a business report.

After reading the paper, it is difficult to understand what is the conceptual positioning and the theoretical streams developed in the paper. There is no research question and therefore we cannot link it to the methods and to further discussions.

The abstract should be rewritten, reorganized, and streamlined. Before presenting the problem statement, the theoretical positioning, and the methods, the abstracts starts by explaining the ‘contribution’ (lines 13-16). The flow of the ideas presented in the abstract is not clear.

The abstract as other parts of the paper should be written in the present tense, not in the past tense. This is a best practice in writing articles in English-language (lines 11-13; lines 16-18). Many sentences require a full rewriting. For example: ‘the authors performed… of an experiment conducted…’… is not appropriate.

The abstract explains the approach applied in the literature review… and afterwards moves to a ‘statistical data analysis…’. The reference to an ‘experiment’ comes only afterwards. There is an intermediate step about the methods (measurement instruments, sample, data collection…) that is not taken into consideration. It is difficult to understand what the methods are.

The research streams should be indicated and linked to the main question. The main research question should be grounded in the business/entrepreneurship literature and not only on general assumptions (examples: ‘theory of planned behavior’; entrepreneurial intentions as a multi-dimensional concept; emergent and deliberate strategies in a context of entrepreneurship…). The problem statement described in the abstracts does not help us to understand what the link with the academic literature is. What are the conceptual approaches that will be developed in this paper?.

For example, how do you define what is an ‘entrepreneurial intention’? how it was explained and measured in the literature in entrepreneurship ?. Is it the same as the ‘strategic intention’ or not? (see, in particular Azjen and Fishbein, 1975; Kuratako et al., 2007 ; Krueger et Carstud, 2000; Wong and Choo, 2009; Douglas, 2021). This concept should be developed, explained, and the measurement instruments should be clearly identified. For example, to what extent the theory of planned behavior is integrated into your study (Ajzen, 1985; 1991; 2002) ? Further, the concept should be integrated into a framework specifying the linkages between the different variables.

The presentation of the ‘results’ at the end of the general introduction is not appropriate. The contribution of the paper should be stated in the general conclusion, not into the introduction (lines 100-104). In addition, the paragraph in lines 100 to 104 is irrelevant. It includes some broad generalities.

The presentation of the structure of the paper is confusing. What information will be in Part I, Part II, Part III, etc ?. The structuration of the different parts in the paper are not yet clearly identified.

There are not only 2 hypotheses in the literature review (at least 8 hypothesis are listed in lines 282-304). The presentation of the hypothesis is not clearly developed. If those hypothesis were established, what is the conceptual framework where it was grounded ? please build a figure explaining how the different concepts are linked and the directions of influence between the variables.

I am also surprised that the concept of ‘entrepreneurial intention’ was not included in any of the hypothesis ? this is not consistent with the objectives of the work…  (Objective stated initially: to assess the ‘impact of the use of a digital tool KABADA in entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention in Generation Z’). Something is unclear between the purpose of the work, the literature review, and the hypothesis developed in the body of the proposal.

I recommend an entire rewriting of the General Introduction. Start by indicating the importance of the topic, defining the concepts, the main purpose/goals, a general hypothesis, and presenting the main research streams, the problem statement. Instead of describing what the UN Goals please engage directly with the literature concepts related to the entrepreneurial ‘intention’ and the discussions in the literature related to ‘entrepreneurship education’.

The literature review is limited and it has little explanatory potential. You need to build an ad-hoc framework linking digital transformation, entrepreneurial education, and entrepreneurship intention. It should be entirely rewritten.

Kabada should (only) be introduced in the section of Data and Methods, not in the literature review or into the introduction. The same goes to Generation-Z (lines 68-75). Please avoid defining the same concepts multiple times and in different parts of the paper. The different concepts should be presented on a logical order and in the appropriate sections.

The information included in Figure 1 is not always clean. For example, what are GPUs in Figure 1 ?

The sentence in lines 238-239 is a repetition of the information disclosed in the general introduction.

The sentences in lines 257-279 are descriptive. The definitions of the concepts should be added into the general introduction, not in the section dedicated to the literature review.

The expression ‘various study levels from several study directions’ is irrelevant. The English is not appropriate. It adds no value to the empirical study or to the demonstration.

 

*The explanation of the different steps of the methods applied is confusing: control/experimental group, survey before and after, the administration of a second questionnaire, how many sessions were organized ?, what questions were repeated and when ?. Please add a figure explaining the flows and steps in your methods.

*The literature in strategic management point out the limitation of methods developed in the 1960s such as the SWOT analysis. SWOT analysis is highly criticized because it is not anymore adapted to a world of hyper-competition. To what extent the introduction of a SWOT analysis is adapted to the current business environment ? to what extent the use of SWOT analysis is adapted to assess entrepreneurial intentions ? See, for example, Pickton and Wright (1998); Kouamé and Langley (2017).

How Kabada is adapted to the entrepreneurial process in different organizations, environments, and entrepreneurs ? How it is adapted to an hyper-competition environment and to the decision-making (multi-criteria) process ?

Does Kabada assume the entrepreneurs’ strategies are deliberate or emergent ?. How these decision-making processes relate to entrepreneurial intentions ?

The discussion is limited. Please refer to findings in previous literature in detail and ultimately compare the findings of your own study with those performing similar studies.

For example, to what extent your findings are in line with the Theory of Planned Behavior introduced in the context of entrepreneurship ?

Please avoid giving your personal opinions (lines 516-519).

The general conclusion should start by reminding what the initial problem statement is and the main answers provided by the study.

What are the key theoretical, practical, and methodological contributions of this paper ?

The description of the statistical methods in the general conclusion is irrelevant (lines 563-566).

I do not understand the purpose of referring to subjective norms and behavior on the influence on entrepreneurial intentions? (lines 575-578). To what extent this is relevant?.

Any extensions related to potential new theoretical contributions?.

The general conclusion should be entirely rewritten in order to reflecting the above issues on a more objective and structured manner.

The references included in the paper should be completed and integrated the standards required for publication in the journal.

*The written English requires major improvements. There are many repetitions. Some expressions are not relevant and/or are not adapted.

Many other parts of the paper require fine tuning. In summary, the paper should be entirely rewritten and reconsidered.

The written English requires major improvements. There are many repetitions. Some expressions are not relevant and/or are not adapted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4!

Please find our reply to your comments in the file attached!

Best regards,

Kristaps Lesinskis,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

‘Digital transformation in entrepreneurship education: the use of a digital tool KABADA and entrepreneurial intention of Generation Z’.

This paper introduces an important topic for sustainability and entrepreneurship studies and fits well in the general purpose of the journal. Following the abstract, the objective of the paper seems to be to ‘investigate the impact of the use of digital tool KABADA in entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention in Generation Z, based on experiment conducted in selected countries of the European Union’.

Despite of the focus of the general purpose of the article, this proposal has many weaknesses: some concepts are not clearly defined, the abstract should be rewritten, the introduction is mainly descriptive, there is no literature review, the methods should be detailed and improved, external validity was not implemented, the conclusion should be completed and completely reframed…

*The abstract repeats multiple times the word ‘authors’ – not appropriate.

*’Generation Z’ is repeated 4 times (!) in the abstract

*suppress each one of the statistical tests indicated in the abstract (irrelevant)

At the end of the ‘general introduction’ you should present the different parts of the paper. In that same part (i.e. general introduction’) is it relevant to say that the paper consists of an ‘introduction’ (line 119). You should present the upcoming parts/sections of the paper on a logical and comprehensive manner, not just highlighting the titles (lines 119-123).

A major review of the style and writing is required. Hereafter some examples of words and sentences that are not appropriate.

*The passive voice is used in the abstract ‘tool KABADA created by the authors’ (line 18) – not appropriate

 

The expression ‘authors’ is referred 40 (!) times in the text. The repetition of this word denotes poor English writing.

Some expressions are redundant… ‘As Table 1 indicates, authors believe…’

‘the authors of the study applied…’ (line 374). Who else could write the paper if not authors ?

‘one of the authors of this article’ (line 393)

‘so the authors have conducted a quasi-experiment…’ (similar expression to line 374).

‘the authors’ can’t confirm…’(line 512). The style is not appropriate (for example, you should use instead ‘cannot’).

 

Part 2 should specify the theoretical model linking the influence of ‘digital transformation and artificial intelligence in education of entrepreneurial intentions’.

The title of part 2 creates the expectation that there will be some explanation about the context and definitions related to ‘entrepreneurial intentions’. However, the concept of ‘intention’ is only quoted twice in the same paragraph in all section (lines 257-266). You should provide a detailed definition and explanation about what ‘intention’ means and how the concept was measured in the literature review. Please provide a table summarizing the different studies in the literature review (references, purpose of the studies, measurement, sampling, outcomes…). The current explanation does not provide evidence about the concept definition, measurements, and outcomes.

The section 3 dedicated to the data and research methodology starts by saying ‘the empirical part of the article analyzes the results of an experiment that examined the impact of using the digital tool Kabada’ (lines 312-313). Why in this section dedicated to the methods you start by referring to the ‘results’. This should be avoided to ensure the logical flow of your demonstration.

In lines 314 to 319 you introduce and define KABADA. This is not logical as in the previous section you formulated several hypothesis with KABADA. Should the reader learn the meaning of KABADA only after the hypothesis that include KABADA ?. This is not logical. Please reorganize the contents. Definitions should be introduced before further developments about the concepts.

Section 3.2. introduces a conceptual framework. We expected to see such framework in a section dedicated to the ‘Literature review’, not in the section about the ‘Data and Methods’.

There is not explanations/developments on the literature review related to the framework presented in Figure 3. For example, the literature review about ‘subjective norms’ is not developed in the contents of the article. The same goes for the other items and variables presented in such framework. The figure should be placed in the section where the literature review is introduced.

The discussion should start by introducing the main problem statement and hypothesis and the answers provided through your own findings.

I did not read in your literature review any discussion/summary about the effects of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intentions (see my comments above). Therefore, the start of the discussion seems disconnected with the arguments advanced in the section dedicated to the literature review.

Specifying what KABADA is in the conclusions is irrelevant. Please remove it (lines 597-599).

*The written English requires major improvements. There are many repetitions. Some expressions are not relevant and/or are not adapted. A major proofreading is also required.

Many other parts of the paper require fine tuning. In summary, the paper should be entirely rewritten and reconsidered.

I already provided substantial comments in my two previous reviews. Again, I take the opportunity to add a few more comments to some key parts in the paper. Some of my previous comments were not fully integrated in the review(s). I hope the authors find it useful.

The expression ‘authors’ is referred 40 (!) times in the text. The repetition of this word denotes poor English writing.

Some expressions are redundant… ‘As Table 1 indicates, authors believe…’

‘the authors of the study applied…’ (line 374). Who else could write the paper if not authors ?

‘one of the authors of this article’ (line 393)

‘so the authors have conducted a quasi-experiment…’ (similar expression to line 374).

‘the authors’ can’t confirm…’(line 512). The style is not appropriate (for example, you should use instead ‘cannot’).

The written English requires major improvements. There are many repetitions. Some expressions are not relevant and/or are not adapted. A major proofreading is also required.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find attached our notes regarding comments of Reviewer 4.

On behalf of our team,

Kristaps Lešinskis

Corresponding author 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf