Mediated Effect of Entrepreneurial Education on Students’ Intention to Engage in Social Entrepreneurial Projects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript covers the very important topic of entrepreneurial education. The authors planned the material very well, which is evident when reading the abstract. This one is very substantive, interesting, and readable. I encourage you to continue reading this. Introduction The authors started the introduction to the article in an interesting way, justifying the importance of the topic under consideration. The introduction shows what the gap is filled, what the novelty in the work is, and how the work is planned, which is the value and strength of the work. A literature review It is very solidly carried out, including the latest studies. Methodology This part of the work is undoubtedly its most interesting part. I really like the model created and the way the PLS-SEM was carried out. The authors presented the results using attractive tables, which affect the readability and attractiveness of the material. Conclusion Very well written. The authors refer to the purpose of the work, the research carried out, and the results achieved. It was a great pleasure for me to read this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your interesting work:
Abstract - good quality;
Introduction - clear;
The theoretical part and hypotheses - are good;
Methodology part - good;
Results - good.
My suggestion, separate the conclusion, discussion and future direction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
As I read the manuscript, I found it to be very interesting. Throughout this article, I have found the English to be good. In my opinion, the topic and area of this study were appropriate, and there was a satisfactory number of respondents. However, there are a few concerns:
1. As a matter of fact, I would appreciate it if you could minimize the similarity to below 15%.
2. Due to COVID-19, many higher education institutions have implemented online classes. Therefore, the authors opted for an online survey through Google Forms. In spite of that, I am surprised that it lasted until May 2022?
3. Although the (PLS-SEM) is a good technique, it also has a few disadvantages. I recommend authors mention this with references because you must warn the community about the disadvantages as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have used confirmatory factor (CFA) analysis as their statistical procedure (or, at least, this is suggested from the research). Considering that the authors have allocated apriori the items on the scales, the factor analysis appears to be confirmatory. However, the authors have not presented the procedure in full (the diagram of relationships for all factors) and have not presented the diagnostic statistics for the procedure. Also, the acceptability thresholds for the model must be included, for the main analysis and for the group analysis. Wikipedia is the first step, but there are many good resources on how to adequately report CFA. Confirmatory factor analysis - Wikipedia
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
- I think the title of the paper not matching the objective of the paper as we read the title we need to understand the objective and illustrate the research model. While the authors tried to investigate the mediator role of PISE on relation between EE and SEI, therefore I suggest following title:
“The effect of Entrepreneurial Education on Social Entrepreneurial Intention Considering the Mediating role of Perceived Importance of Social Entrepreneurship”.
- After the title fixed, I would like to see main research question provided based on title. As I noticed the research questions RQ1-RQ3 are almost obvious, and obvious matter does not need any research, because here you are after education which has a positive point, it brings knowledge and awareness for our community. I think better just focus on research main objective and only RQ4 could be only your research question. Furthermore, as in this work you did statistical test, only main RQ is enough.
- The model you provided confirm my explanation about the paper title.
- If available bring the Fornell & Larcker Table and also PLS output results.
- The other issue is with questionnaire which the validity and reliability of the research rely on this. If you used previous one please mention that. I would expect you use more questions for your variables as you just used a minimum (3 question for one variable)
- Generally speaking as an educational point, when we are suggesting a hypothesis it’s better you generally just say, it has effect/ influence/…..without using positively or negatively, as your acceptance of hypothesis lies based on T value, then if it meet your T value criteria, it ll be accepted if not get rejected. So if it get accepted and be in positive direction then normally we say it has positive effect. In the other side maybe it get negative effect, then you say it effects negatively, if you not do this then you have to reject this because you mentioned it has positive effect……normally when you are using one way hypothesis you are limiting your acceptance of hypothesis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Despite a very long letter to the reviewer, I have not seen any improvement to the paper. In this case, I refrain to judge the outcome until the requested improvements are reflected in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
