Riyadh: Evolving to Become as One of the MENA Region’s Key Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigates the quality change of Riyadh's entrepreneurial ecosystem, which is measured in 10 dimensions:  connectivity, leadership, knowledge, talent, finance, culture, formal institutions, services 18 and intermediaries, physical infrastructure, and demand. Using sample data from 2019-2022, the authors found that among the ten pillars studied, there are four that have improved the most in the Riyadh Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Overall, the research topic is important; the sample data well-represents the characteristics of a broader population; data are collected timely; but the contribution of the paper is insufficient.

The authors spent considerable effort examining the response differences between nascent entrepreneurs and new and established owner-managers. But it is unclear how the two groups are fundamentally different from each other. Are they under the influence of different policies? Do they have access to different resources? Do the firms they represent have different sizes? Do they belong to different industry sectors? The relationship between the evolution of the two groups’ responses and the economic diversification needs further explanation.

In the literature review part, the authors should cite and discuss more papers studying MENA region’s economic development and highlight how this study is different from other studies.

Robustness tests are missing in the empirical analysis. It is unclear whether the analytical results are consistent across different measurement methods.

In the conclusion parts, the authors introduced the background of the analysis. However, the conclusion should be used to summarize important findings of the study, highlight the paper’s contribution to literature, discuss research limitations and reveal the directions for future studies.

The quality of English is fine; a few sentences can be more concise. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

 

I would recommend adding more, relevant literature to the sources.

Considering the figures, more compact depicting of the results would be desirable, whether putting them

Into a common figure or table format to compare the result more effectively. 

 

You mentioned chi squared tests and ANOVA tests in the description, could you please

add a more detailed statistical outcome for these?

What are the hypotheses or research questions that you are trying to answer? 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper discusses the entrepreneurial ecosystem, so why is there a lack of a precise definition of "entrepreneurial ecosystem" in the paper? There are sentences describing the ecosystem and its components, for example sentences like, "...the ontological layers of entrepreneurial ecosystems: framework conditions, systemic conditions, outputs and outcomes, as well as what they call causalities (bottom-up and top-down) and the causal relationships between them..." – nevertheless there is a lack of a clear definition.

The theoretical background and literature are limited and require reinforcement.

The research gap is not clearly defined.

What is the reliability and validity of the survey scale?

Limiting the research only to the nascent entrepreneurs and the new and established owner-managers distorts the diagnoses obtained as a result of the research.

There is a lack of limitation of the research in the Conclusions section.

no comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Full names of symbols needed.

the averages which are provided in tables, must also include standard deviation so that one can assess if they are statistically different or not. 

the results must be backed with the literature. 

methods of the study corresponding to the objectives must be clarified. This study lacks some preliminary inferential statistics. the significant differences must be assessed.

Author has mentioned that chi-square test is used but it is not visible in the results section. Author did not clarify what hypotheses they intended to test using chi-squared test. 

proofread for minor inconsistencies. 

the outcome of the study must stark contribution in literature. Authors need to mention appropriate stakeholders who are intented to be targeted in the policy implications of the study. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have spent considerable effort updating the paper. My prior concerns are properly addressed. I am happy to see the improvements the authors have made. This is a well-written paper.