Performance Model of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

My recommendation is "Accept in present Form".

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the highly constructive reviews to our work entitled “Performance Model and Research Practice of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown” (sustainability-2587940).We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Response：We have revised the citations and literature reviews to enrich the theoretical background. For example, we cited the views of North et al., that is, institutions shape the progressive intention of individuals in each society, stimulate entrepreneurship, and thus indirectly promote economic growth, and ultimately provide theoretical basis for our hypothesis.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Response：In the literature review section, we deleted irrelevant references and added relevant ones.
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Response：In the introduction, we clearly posed the research question, and also re-adjusted the hypothesis part to make it clearer and more intuitive.
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Response：We adjusted the content of the discussion section to focus on "further verification of hypotheses and previous studies according to experimental or research results", and deleted irrelevant content to make the article more coherent.
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Response：In order to present our research results more clearly, we also highlighted the highlights of the research results in the discussion section. For example, the path coefficient between the policy and other variables is relatively large, which indicates the importance of the policy.
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Response：We have added more references and theories to demonstrate our paper. For example, by using Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction, we have revised the definition of entrepreneurship in this paper to emphasize the importance of innovation and entrepreneurs themselves in the process of returning to China.
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Response：On the one hand, we also add analysis to the research results in the discussion, on the other hand, we cite more theories to support our conclusions, such as Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The paper now includes more recent citations on the economic background of entrepreneurship but lacks sufficient economic knowledge to support the government's role in promoting the entrepreneurship economy.  It is too simplistic to only reference the institutional theory in line 263. The role of government in a free market economy must be explained in more detail, especially in the context of China where government support for free initiative may differ from other countries. I suggest that authors explore the works of Ausdrecht, Urbano, (already mentioned in the paper and cited but I am not sure that fully understood by the authors), and others to gain a comprehensive understanding of the role of free and independent institutions in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

It is necessary to improve some generalizations about the relevance of entrepreneurship as an individual activity that creates a new environment incorporating the disruption creativity theory of Schumpeter. Moreover, the theoretical framework and literature review can benefit from adding concepts of the entrepreneurship phenomenon linked to individuals' education to enhance self-efficacy. 

I suggest incorporating missing data sources for line 97 and beyond.

 

Although English is correct, there is room for improvement in syntax by avoiding repetitive phrases like "rural revitalization" in the introduction.

The authors have the option to condense redundant information found in paragraphs 61 through 63.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the highly constructive reviews to our work entitled “Performance Model and Research Practice of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown” (sustainability-2587940).We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

1. The paper now includes more recent citations on the economic background of entrepreneurship but lacks sufficient economic knowledgeto support the government's role in promoting the entrepreneurship economy.  It is too simplistic to only reference the institutional theory in line 263. The role of government in a free market economy must be explained in more detail, especially in the context of China where government support for free initiative may differ from other countries. I suggest that authors explore the works of Ausdrecht, Urbano, (already mentioned in the paper and cited but I am not sure that fully understood by the authors), and others to gain a comprehensive understanding of the role of free and independent institutions in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Response：You're correct. It is challenging to convey my point of view in its entirety using just one line that makes use of the system theory. This is why I cite North et al.'s theories, according to which the system influences people's intentions toward advancement in every community, encourages entrepreneurship, and so indirectly supports economic growth.

 

2. It is necessary to improve some generalizations about the relevance of entrepreneurship as an individual activitythat creates a new environment incorporating the disruption creativity theory of Schumpeter. 

Response：With reference to Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction, we have revised the definition of entrepreneurship in this paper to highlight the importance of innovation and entrepreneurs themselves in the process of returning home to start a business.

 

3. Moreover, the theoretical framework and literature review can benefit from adding concepts of the entrepreneurship phenomenonlinked to individuals' education to enhance self-efficacy.

Response：In our review of self-efficacy, we emphasized the influence of external environment, including innovation and entrepreneurship education, on entrepreneurs' self-efficacy.

 

4. I suggest incorporating missing data sources for line 97 and beyond.

Response：We have incorporated the missing data source into the appropriate location.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Topic:

The topic is extensive. It should be more concise.

The kewords are long. For example: the innovation performance of businesses

 

Introduction

The aim of the study is mentioned in some way. But what is the problem identified in the literature that justifies the study?

 

Literature review

What is the background to the study? The literature review should start with entrepreneurial spaces. Then governmental policies. The relationship between governmental policies, services and designs for rural entrepreneurial spaces. Self-efficacy of returning young entrepreneurs. And performance of businesses.

 

Research hypotheses should be formulated from the interrelationship of these themes (variables). This can be done, for example, in a separate subsection.

 

The literature review section should not be too long.

 

Conclusion

The conclusion section should highlight the limitations and suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the highly constructive reviews to our work entitled “Performance Model and Research Practice of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown” (sustainability-2587940).We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

Topic:

 

The topic is extensive. It should be more concise.

Response：Thank you for your advice, We have optimized the title to "Performance Model of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown".

 

The kewords are long. For example: the innovation performance of businesses

Response：We have amended the keywords "returning to hometown and pioneering" and "the innovation performance of businesses" to "home-coming. pioneering "and" Innovative performance"

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The aim of the study is mentioned in some way. But what is the problem identified in the literature that justifies the study?

Response：We have included specific research questions in the introductory section: What effect do rural business incubator platforms have on young people who go back to their hometowns to start businesses? And what part does policy played in the government? What will the long-term impact be on how well businesses innovate?

 

Literature review

 

What is the background to the study? The literature review should start with entrepreneurial spaces. Then governmental policies. The relationship between governmental policies, services and designs for rural entrepreneurial spaces. Self-efficacy of returning young entrepreneurs. And performance of businesses.

Response：We have restructured the literature review section from entrepreneurial spaces to governmental policies to their relationship, and then their relationship to self-efficacy of returning young entrepreneurs, performance of businesses.

 

 

Research hypotheses should be formulated from the interrelationship of these themes (variables). This can be done, for example, in a separate subsection.

Response：We have reorganised the layout of the Research hypotheses to present the hypotheses in a separate subsection.

 

The literature review section should not be too long.

Response：On the basis of the suggestions you have given, we have abridged the literature review, hoping to make the language concise and the length shorter, while fully justifying the hypotheses.

 

Conclusion

 

The conclusion section should highlight the limitations and suggestions for future research.

Response：We have already highlighted limitations and suggestions in the conclusion section.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Paper has been improved to provide a more comprehensive background on the notion and implication of entrepreneurship in economic literature..

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is no novelty for this paper and my recommendation is "Reject". However, several comments have been mentioned as below:

1- Why authors have used the questionnaire tool to collect data? Considering the need to examine the depth of the problem, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use interview or observation tools? 

2- What is the reason for choosing rural areas as the research community? It should be mention in the text.

3- How many people is the size of the statistical population?

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear professor,

     Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the attached file for more information as we have provided a comparable reply to your ideas. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

     Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions !

Best wishes,

Xiaojun Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is intriguing, but it lacks economic expertise and confuses concepts without examining the shared ideas critically. Specifically, it links entrepreneurship to economic growth and SDG without proper review.

This article discusses the connection between entrepreneurship and government involvement. However, it fails to provide a strong economic basis and a clear explanation of the relationship between entrepreneurship, market freedom, and government role. The article combines different concepts without providing a solid theoretical foundation, which weakens its credibility and validity. The explanation provided is vague and lacks depth, failing to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of how entrepreneurship incentives and components interact and shape economic outcomes. The article's rejection is justifiable due to the absence of economic background and theories supporting economic growth from the institutional perspective. To improve it, suggestions such as reviewing the role of entrepreneurship in human action and including the role of incentives, institutions and market freedom. Additionally, it is important to include certain literature such as:

Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2018). Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: what has been learned? Small Business Economics 2018 53:1, 53(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11187-018-0038-0

Sander Wennekers, & Roy Thurik. (1999). Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–56. Retrieved from https://personal.eur.nl/thurik/Research/Articles/Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth.pdf

Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. C. (2006). Entrepreneurial Capital and Economic Growth. Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, 236.

Audretsch, D., & Thurik, R. (2004). A Model of the Entrepreneurial Economy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 2(April 2003), 143–166.

Bygrave, W., & Minniti, M. (2000). The Social Dynamics of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(3), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870002400302

Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The Theory of Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00722.x

I have no comments regarding this aspect. I believe the English writing is adequate.

Author Response

Dear professor,

     Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the attached file for more information as we have provided a comparable reply to your ideas. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

     Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions !

Best wishes,

Xiaojun Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

Provide Context and Background: The abstract lacks specific details about the context of the study and the current state of rural crowdsourcing spaces, youth entrepreneurship, and government policies in the region. Adding a brief background section would enhance the readers' understanding of the study's relevance.

Elaborate on the Methodology: While the abstract mentions the use of questionnaires and structural modeling, it could benefit from providing more information about the sample size, data collection process, and statistical methods that were employed in the study.

Suggest Implications for Policymakers: The abstract could be strengthened by explicitly suggesting potential implications for policymakers based on the study's findings. This would underline the practical relevance of the research and its potential to inform policymaking in rural development.

By addressing these recommendations, the abstract will provide a clearer and more comprehensive overview of the study's objectives, methodology, and potential implications. This will enhance its impact and encourage readers to further explore the research.

Introduction

The authors need to repackage the introduction to indicate and Start with an attention-grabbing statement to capture the reader's interest. It could be a surprising fact, a thought-provoking question, a relevant quote, or a brief anecdote related to your research topic. Also, give a brief overview of the research area and provide essential background information to help the readers understand the context of your study and why the research topic is important and relevant in the broader field.

 Besides, briefly state the Research Problem or the main question that your study aims to address. This sets the focus of your research and gives the readers an understanding of what to expect from the paper. Also, Highlight the Research Gap in the existing literature that your research intends to fill. Explain how your study contributes to the existing knowledge and why it is significant. It should culminate into a Statement that Presents the specific objectives or goals of your research. Clearly articulate what they intend to achieve through the study

Methodology

elaborate on Data and Methodology: The section does not provide adequate information about the data collection methods or the research design. Expanding on the proposed data collection process and methodology would enhance the credibility of the study, particularly the ethical consideration,

 

Conclusion

Clarify the Contribution: The conclusion should explicitly state the specific contributions of the study to the existing literature. This will help readers understand how the research adds value to the field of entrepreneurship and rural development.

Practical Implications: The conclusion should highlight practical implications for policymakers, entrepreneurs, and other stakeholders. Clearly articulate how the findings can inform the design and implementation of entrepreneurship policies and the development of rural crowdsourcing spaces.

The conclusions need to be thoroughly supported by the results referenced in the secondary literature.

                                            

By addressing these points, the conclusion will become more comprehensive and persuasive, effectively emphasizing the significance of the research and guiding future work in this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minor editing is required

 

Author Response

Dear professor,

     Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the attached file for more information as we have provided a comparable reply to your ideas. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

     Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions !

Best wishes,

Xiaojun Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Theme

The topic is interesting and current. But the topic should be more objective in view of the study carried out.

 

Introduction

Provide a rationale for the study based on the literature. What is the problem identified?

Reduce the number of paragraphs without bibliographical references.

 

Literature review

Improve the alignment between keywords and literature review.

Reinforce the literature referred to in the key words.

The literature review should start with the rural area as a variable.

The study model should be presented before the methodology section (research methods).

 

Methodology

Provide more information about the study universe and the study population.

 

Results

The contribution of the study to the literature and to practitioners should be highlighted.

Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research should be highlighted.

Author Response

Dear professor,

     Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the attached file for more information as we have provided a comparable reply to your ideas. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

     Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions !

Best wishes,

Xiaojun Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.docx