The Impact of Learning Organization on Intrapreneurship: The Case of Jordanian Pharmaceutics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article focuses on the relationship between learning organizations and intrapreneurships, the authors posit that  there is a significant effect of lerning organization dimensions on Intrapreneurship.    The issue of the learning organization has been addressed by researchers and practitioners since the 1970s. It is worth pointing out in the article the background as to why again this aspect of management is important. Also lacking references to the modern economy, the authors focus only on presenting research results. The text could be enriched by showing what has changed since the 1970s , especially in the context of society 5.0. In all areas, whether resilience, modern technology or the social dimension, the relationships presented are very important.  This would be even more worth mentioning in the context of the cited results of empirical studies. 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,            

Authors appreciate the great efforts made by the reviewers and editor. We have carefully compiled all the comments to rewrite and resubmit the paper. The details of the point-by-point revisions are described as follows. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have elevated the quality of this paper. Thank you all for your valuable comments. We appreciate your efforts and contributions.

The article focuses on the relationship between learning organizations and intrapreneurships, the authors posit that there is a significant effect of lerning organization dimensions on Intrapreneurship.    The issue of the learning organization has been addressed by researchers and practitioners since the 1970s. It is worth pointing out in the article the background as to why again this aspect of management is important. Also lacking references to the modern economy, the authors focus only on presenting research results. The text could be enriched by showing what has changed since the 1970s , especially in the context of society 5.0. In all areas, whether resilience, modern technology or the social dimension, the relationships presented are very important.  This would be even more worth mentioning in the context of the cited results of empirical studies. 

Reply: Kindly see the highlighted paragraphs pages 1,9,10,16

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find attached file.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,            

Authors appreciate the great efforts made by the reviewers and editor. We have carefully compiled all the comments to rewrite and resubmit the paper. The details of the point-by-point revisions are described as follows. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have elevated the quality of this paper. Thank you all for your valuable comments. We appreciate your efforts and contributions.

Reviewer 2:

Please find attached file.

Reply: Kindly see the highlighted paragraphs alongside the whole manuscript. Also, we modified the research title into: The Impact of Learning Organization on Intrapreneurship: The Case of Jordanian Pharmaceutics

Reviewer 3 Report

This article explores a possible relationship between entrepreneurship and learning organisation. While the idea has some merits, I don’t feel that this work provides a clear contribution to the subject. The authors should justify better their research and explicitly explain the contribution. Please read my specific observations below.

1.       I am not sure about the novelty of this research. In this respect, the authors explain the following in Page 1:

“This research examines the importance, various dimensions of these concepts and investigates the relationship between learning organization and intrapreneurship by developing a new model, in a developing economy, the context of the pharmaceutical sector in Jordan”.

Please explain in more detail this aim. For example, why do we need a new model? I am sure that there are several alternatives in the business literature. Please explain in what sense your approach is superior. Also, explain why the pharmaceutical sector in Jordan was selected. Please justify your opinions.

2.       Literature review: I found this literature very “robotic”. It contains too many sub-headings for some topics that can be discussed in single but connected paragraphs within a single heading. And this section it is too descriptive. The authors should integrate the information and to develop a narrative that is logical and critical. I can see that there is good material in this part. But the way in which this information is presented is too descriptive.

3.       The theoretical framework proposed by the authors is interesting. However, it is very simple  because entrepreneurship is not only affected by learning organisation, but also by a number of other considerations. This should be acknowledged. Researchers should explain the limitations of omitting potential factors that may also affect entrepreneurship activity.

4.       Related to my previous comment, the omission of relevant variables in an econometric model can introduce biases in the parameters. This is why, again, I stress the fact that the proposed model should be justify explaining why other considerations were not considered.  Alternatively, authors are invited to extend the theoretical framework and try to run more complex regression analyses. In fact, related research normally uses regression analysis to test several hypotheses rather than a single one.

5.       The regression model should be reported in the section on results, not in the methodology. In the result section, authors should explain the main findings, explain what hypotheses have been supported, what variables are more significant, and what variables have higher impact on the dependent variable, among others. Still, I have the feeling that the regression analysis described in the methodology is too simplistic, and there are not tests to check whether there are problems of normality in the residuals, heteroskedasticity, etc.  

6.       Discussion: More implications are needed in this part. What are the implications of each independent variable? Are there implications for managers and policymakers?

7.       Please add more limitations. This work has a number of limitations that should be acknowledged.  

English is appropriate in general. What I suggest, is to improve justification and the narrative. Please follow a logical sequence of ideas.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,            

Authors appreciate the great efforts made by the reviewers and editor. We have carefully compiled all the comments to rewrite and resubmit the paper. The details of the point-by-point revisions are described as follows. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have elevated the quality of this paper. Thank you all for your valuable comments. We appreciate your efforts and contributions.

This article explores a possible relationship between entrepreneurship and learning organisation. While the idea has some merits, I don’t feel that this work provides a clear contribution to the subject. The authors should justify better their research and explicitly explain the contribution. Please read my specific observations below.

1. I am not sure about the novelty of this research. In this respect, the authors explain the following in Page 1:

“This research examines the importance, various dimensions of these concepts and investigates the relationship between learning organization and intrapreneurship by developing a new model, in a developing economy, the context of the pharmaceutical sector in Jordan”.

Please explain in more detail this aim. For example, why do we need a new model? I am sure that there are several alternatives in the business literature. Please explain in what sense your approach is superior. Also, explain why the pharmaceutical sector in Jordan was selected. Please justify your opinions.

Reply:

1. A new paragraph was added to the first page which clarifies the aim of the research.
2. Highlighted the two paragraphs page 8 which clarifies the justification for running this research and choosing the variables,
3. A new paragraph was added page 2 which justify the chose of the pharmaceutical sector in Jordan to conduct this research.

 

2. Literature review: I found this literature very “robotic”. It contains too many sub-headings for some topics that can be discussed in single but connected paragraphs within a single heading. And this section it is too descriptive. The authors should integrate the information and to develop a narrative that is logical and critical. I can see that there is good material in this part. But the way in which this information is presented is too descriptive.

Reply: The literature review was improved and new sub-titles were added in the literature review section.

3. The theoretical framework proposed by the authors is interesting. However, it is very simple  because entrepreneurship is not only affected by learning organisation, but also by a number of other considerations. This should be acknowledged. Researchers should explain the limitations of omitting potential factors that may also affect entrepreneurship activity.

Reply: kindly see the highlighted paragraphs page 9.

4. Related to my previous comment, the omission of relevant variables in an econometric model can introduce biases in the parameters. This is why, again, I stress the fact that the proposed model should be justify explaining why other considerations were not considered.  Alternatively, authors are invited to extend the theoretical framework and try to run more complex regression analyses. In fact, related research normally uses regression analysis to test several hypotheses rather than a single one.

Reply: Kindly see the Discussion, justification and rationale behind choosing these dimensions of the learning organization as an antecedent for intrapreneurship pages 9 and 10.

5. The regression model should be reported in the section on results, not in the methodology. In the result section, authors should explain the main findings, explain what hypotheses have been supported, what variables are more significant, and what variables have higher impact on the dependent variable, among others. Still, I have the feeling that the regression analysis described in the methodology is too simplistic, and there are not tests to check whether there are problems of normality in the residuals, heteroskedasticity, etc.  

Reply: Other analyses have been added from pages 11-14.

6. Discussion: More implications are needed in this part. What are the implications of each independent variable? Are there implications for managers and policymakers?

Reply: Kindly see the highlighted paragraphs pages 16 and 17.

7. Please add more limitations. This work has a number of limitations that should be acknowledged.  

Reply: added page 17.

 

English is appropriate in general. What I suggest, is to improve justification and the narrative. Please follow a logical sequence of ideas.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

The article deals with an important research topic. The review of the literature is very broad. However, the article requires correction in some parts. In the introduction, indicate the research challenges. Next to the goal, refer to the research hypothesis.

Table 2 is too large. I don't understand why the description is in quotes in the second column. Please explain or remove it. In addition, this table is not very legible, you should think about its refinement.

Table 3 also requires the font to be reduced and made clearer. Separate the conclusions from the discussion or justify why they were merged. In the discussion, refer to world research in a broader way. Complete with research limitations. Further research challenges were formulated correctly.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,            

Authors appreciate the great efforts made by the reviewers and editor. We have carefully compiled all the comments to rewrite and resubmit the paper. The details of the point-by-point revisions are described as follows. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have elevated the quality of this paper. Thank you all for your valuable comments. We appreciate your efforts and contributions.

Dear authors,

The article deals with an important research topic. The review of the literature is very broad. However, the article requires correction in some parts. In the introduction, indicate the research challenges. Next to the goal, refer to the research hypothesis.

Table 2 is too large. I don't understand why the description is in quotes in the second column. Please explain or remove it. In addition, this table is not very legible, you should think about its refinement.

Table 3 also requires the font to be reduced and made clearer. Separate the conclusions from the discussion or justify why they were merged. In the discussion, refer to world research in a broader way. Complete with research limitations. Further research challenges were formulated correctly.

Reply: The comments were met.

Reviewer 5 Report

Article:

The Learning Organization and Intrapreneurship: Pharmaceutics in a Developing Economy

1.     The abstract does not reflect the title. In this case there is no visible aspect of economic development. Pharmaceutical companies as a locus were also not analyzed in terms of their characteristics.

2.     The purpose of the research is not quite clear where it lies.

3.     The following sentence should not be placed in methodology and data analysis but in research results.

4.     Result: The results need to be analyzed in more detail and compared with references and research results that have existed before.

5.     Conclusion: The conclusions do not describe the results and are not in accordance with the research objectives. It would be better if the discussion sub-chapter was separated, not combined with the concluding sub-chapter. In this article it is not clear what the conclusions from this research are.

6.     Acknowledgment: Not found in the article

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,            

Authors appreciate the great efforts made by the reviewers and editor. We have carefully compiled all the comments to rewrite and resubmit the paper. The details of the point-by-point revisions are described as follows. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have elevated the quality of this paper. Thank you all for your valuable comments. We appreciate your efforts and contributions.

The Learning Organization and Intrapreneurship: Pharmaceutics in a Developing Economy

1. The abstract does not reflect the title. In this case there is no visible aspect of economic development. Pharmaceutical companies as a locus were also not analyzed in terms of their characteristics.

Reply: the abstract has been amended.

2. The purpose of the research is not quite clear where it lies.

Reply: The purpose was amended, and knowledge gaps were added after the literature review.

 

3. The following sentence should not be placed in methodology and data analysis but in research results.

Reply: The methodology has been amended.

 

4. Result: The results need to be analyzed in more detail and compared with references and research results that have existed before.

Reply: Data analysis has been amended.

 

5. Conclusion: The conclusions do not describe the results and are not in accordance with the research objectives. It would be better if the discussion sub-chapter was separated, not combined with the concluding sub-chapter. In this article it is not clear what the conclusions from this research are.

Reply: The discussion and conclusion were amended.

 

6. Acknowledgment: Not found in the article

Reply: the acknowledgment has been added page 17.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have introduced the recommended changes satisfactorily. I don't have any other concern. In my opinion, the article is ready for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

The article has been completely rebuilt from the original version. The authors have adapted to the comments of the reviewers. I find that the project's goal and hypotheses have been formulated better. The article deals with a current and scientifically important topic. I have no objections to the methodology and structure of the article. Correct literature was used. The drawings were prepared correctly, and the research limitations and further research challenges were indicated.

Reviewer 5 Report

All suggestions and corrections have been successfully made.