Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Embeddedness, Knowledge Dynamic Capabilities, and User Entrepreneurial Opportunity Development in China: The Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for inviting me to review this manuscript. This manuscript provides a comprehensive examination of how embeddedness in the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem influences user entrepreneurial opportunity development, mediated by knowledge dynamic capabilities and moderated by entrepreneurial learning. While the study contributes valuable insights into the interplay between digital ecosystems and entrepreneurship, several critical observations need to be addressed to enhance the manuscript’s rigour and impact.
1. The manuscript’s conceptual framework integrates multiple complex constructs, including digital entrepreneurship ecosystem embeddedness, knowledge dynamic capabilities, and entrepreneurial learning. However, the integration and operationalisation of these constructs could benefit from greater clarity and depth. Specifically, how entrepreneurial learning distinctly moderates the relationships among ecosystem embeddedness, knowledge capabilities, and opportunity development could be elaborated further with theoretical underpinnings to strengthen the manuscript’s theoretical contribution.
2. The concept of entrepreneurial learning (Politis, 2005) is central to the study’s findings, yet its operationalisation and measurement could be clarified further. Providing a more detailed explanation of the dimensions of entrepreneurial learning considered in the study and how these specifically influence the other constructs would enhance the manuscript’s theoretical and empirical contributions.
3. While the manuscript outlines the methodology employed, including sample selection and data collection, there is a need for a more detailed justification of the chosen methods. For example, the rationale behind selecting Chinese user entrepreneurial enterprises as the study context and its implications for the generalisability of the findings to other settings or ecosystems would enrich the reader's understanding of the study’s scope and limitations.
4. The study’s sample is confined to Chinese enterprises, which raises questions about the diversity and inclusiveness of the research. Expanding the sample to include a wider range of entrepreneurial ventures, including those led by underrepresented groups or operating in diverse sectors, could enrich the findings and enhance the manuscript's relevance to a broader audience.
5. The manuscript provides a robust statistical analysis of the proposed hypotheses. However, a more detailed discussion on the implications of the findings, especially concerning the partial mediation effects and the significant moderating role of entrepreneurial learning, would be beneficial. Additionally, addressing potential multicollinearity issues between the moderating and independent variables and how these were managed would enhance the study’s methodological rigour.
6. While the manuscript employs hierarchical regression analysis and the Bootstrap method, further robustness checks, such as alternative model specifications or sensitivity analyses, could strengthen the empirical findings. Additionally, addressing any potential endogeneity issues through instrumental variable techniques or other methods would enhance the credibility of the results.
7. The manuscript could be enriched by incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives, especially from the fields of sociology, psychology, and information technology. Examining how social norms, psychological factors, and technological advancements interact with ecosystem embeddedness and knowledge dynamics could offer deeper insights into the mechanisms of opportunity development (Dy, 2022).
8. The manuscript outlines several practical implications for user entrepreneurs and governments. These could be further expanded by providing specific, actionable recommendations based on the study’s findings. For example, how can user entrepreneurs more effectively leverage digital ecosystems for opportunity development? What specific policies or supports can governments provide to enhance the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem’s effectiveness?
9. Beyond the general practical implications mentioned, the manuscript could detail specific policy recommendations and entrepreneurial practices based on the findings. For instance, outlining how policymakers can foster digital ecosystem embeddedness or how entrepreneurs can strategically engage in entrepreneurial learning activities to enhance their opportunity development processes.
10. The manuscript acknowledges limitations and suggests avenues for future research. Expanding on these limitations, particularly regarding the study’s geographical focus and the cross-sectional nature of the data, would provide a more comprehensive view of the study’s scope and applicability. Furthermore, proposing future research directions that could explore longitudinal impacts, the role of technological advancements, and comparative studies across different ecosystems or cultural contexts would be valuable.
11. The manuscript would benefit from a broader literature review, particularly integrating recent research on the impacts of global challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, on digital entrepreneurial ecosystems (Yáñez-Valdés & Guerrero, 2024). How these global challenges affect the dynamics of ecosystem embeddedness, knowledge sharing, and opportunity development could provide a timely and relevant extension of the manuscript’s current focus.
12. The manuscript could benefit from a discussion on the implications of the digital divide on digital entrepreneurial ecosystem embeddedness and the development of entrepreneurial opportunities. Exploring how disparities in access to digital resources and technologies affect the acquisition and sharing of knowledge among user entrepreneurs would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem’s dynamics.
13. The manuscript could be significantly enriched by discussing the implications of the digital divide on social inclusivity. For instance, certain populations may be systematically disadvantaged due to a lack of access to digital technologies, insufficient digital literacy, or socio-economic barriers that prevent full participation in the digital economy (Liu et al., 2021). This exclusion not only limits the pool of potential entrepreneurs but also perpetuates existing inequalities, as those without digital access or skills are unable to benefit from the opportunities presented by digital entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the manuscript would benefit from exploring strategies to mitigate the effects of the digital divide and promote a more inclusive digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. This could involve examining policy interventions, technological solutions, educational programs, and community-based initiatives aimed at increasing digital access and literacy among underrepresented groups. By addressing these aspects, the study could contribute valuable insights into how digital entrepreneurship ecosystems can be designed and nurtured to support equitable opportunity development and reduce social exclusion.
14. Given the journal’s focus on sustainability, integrating discussions on how digital entrepreneurial ecosystems contribute to or hinder the achievement of sustainability goals could add a valuable dimension to the manuscript. This could involve examining the role of digital ecosystems in promoting environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and economic development.
15. Whilst the manuscript makes theoretical contributions, further elaboration on how this study extends existing theories of digital entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities would enhance its impact. Specifically, discussing how the findings contribute to or challenge existing theoretical frameworks in the fields of entrepreneurship and knowledge management would be insightful.
16. Whilst the manuscript is grounded in entrepreneurial ecosystem theory and dynamic capability theory, exploring alternative theoretical frameworks, such as complexity theory or network theory, could provide additional lenses through which to interpret the findings. Discussing how these alternative theories complement or contrast with the current theoretical framework would enrich the manuscript’s theoretical depth.
Reference
Dy, A. M. (2022). Levelling the playing field? Towards a critical-social perspective on digital entrepreneurship. Futures, 135, 102438.
Liu, Q., Liu, Y., Zhang, C., An, Z., & Zhao, P. (2021). Elderly mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative exploration in Kunming, China. Journal of transport geography, 96, 103176.
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(4), 399-424.
Yáñez-Valdés, C., & Guerrero, M. (2024). Determinants and impacts of digital entrepreneurship: A pre-and post-COVID-19 perspective. Technovation, 132, 102983.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageediting can be helpful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is well-crafted, and the authors have approached their research with a commendable scientific rigor. I would like to propose some enhancements to augment its appeal to the intended audience.
1. While the authors effectively highlight a gap in the existing literature, the manner in which the study's outcomes bridge this gap remains vague. Elaborating on how specific elements, such as knowledge dynamic capabilities or entrepreneurial learning, which are not thoroughly examined in the current literature, could be beneficial.
2. Incorporating more recent studies could solidify the study's foundation, offering a more analytical and comparative perspective of the results alongside contemporary research. Given that the paper includes about 40 references, this number appears inadequate for a field that is being actively explored, considering the study's variables.
3. The methodology section lacks a clear explanation of the sampling technique, which is crucial since the study employs inferential statistics, including regression analysis, where one fundamental requirement is random sampling. The authors should address how they tackled this issue, along with providing a scientific rationale for the chosen sample size and its representativeness.
4. Furthermore, although the authors have utilized Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to test for Common Method Bias (CMB), employing the same VIF data to assess the potential for multicollinearity would be advisable.
5. While the discussion thoroughly examines the study's findings, integrating related literature could reveal how these findings align with, differ from, or add to existing research. In the discussion section, it is crucial for the authors to distinguish between the seminal, novel aspects and the incremental contributions of their research findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to researching effects of Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Embeddedness on User Entrepreneurial Opportunity Development, which is important for developing the ecosystem for digital enterpreneurship.
However, the article has several problems which need to be fixed for it to become impactful:
1. One of the chief problems is that the definitions of main terms (like Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Embeddedness, User Enterpreneur and so on) are given very late in the article if given at all. That significantly reduces the clarity of the first sections (introduction, review of related works). Please, provide clear definitions of what you mean by "ecosystem embeddedness" (embeddedness where?), "use enterpreneur" (how they are different from regular enterpreneurs?), "entrepreneurial opportunity development" (the questions in the survey for EOD are more about the product uniqueness than about development of any opportunity), knowledge sharing (half of questions about knowledge sharing are about exchange of information, which is not always the same as sharing). That will make the article a lot more readable.
2. Similarly, please provide your definitions and/or discussion of the relationship between the terms "knowledge" (Knowledge Acquisition, Knowledge Sharing) and "information" that is actually used in the questions for those variables. Information per se doesn't equal knowledge. Please, discuss this.
3. It is not clear how the article's topic is related to the journal's topic - sustainability. The word "sustainable" is used in the article only 3 times; it was used just as an adjective and was never related to any literature on sustainable development. Neither any research result is directly linked to sustainability. Please, provide a critical discussion of how your results contribute to the sustainable development goals.
4. Please, do not merge Discussion and Conclusions. Provide a short Conclusions sections, summarizing the conclusions made in your study. It is very helpful for the readers.
5. The study was geographically and culturally limited; please reflect that in the manuscript's title.
Fixing these problems will help increase the article's clarity and so its impact.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI'm satisfied with the revision. Thanks for sharing.
Author Response
Thank you to the reviewers for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed only two of my five comments, leaving three important points unattended. My first, third, and fifth comments, crucial for enhancing the manuscript, have not been responded to. Additionally, the document that outlines the responses to the reviewer's comments contains misleading information. For instance, the references to lines 921-934 are incorrectly cited as they fall outside the manuscript's body.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely apologize for the oversight in addressing only two out of your five comments. We acknowledge the importance of all your points, particularly the first, third, and fifth comments, in enhancing the quality of the manuscript. We regret any inconvenience caused by our oversight and assure you that we will promptly address the remaining comments in our revised manuscript.
Furthermore, we apologize for any confusion caused by the misleading information in the document outlining the responses to the reviewer's comments. This discrepancy arose because the original revised manuscript was submitted in a tracked changes format, and the editing team accepted the changes upon receipt, resulting in changes to the document's line numbers. We regret any confusion this may have caused and will ensure that the corrected line numbers are accurately reflected in the revised document.
Once again, we appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback, and we are committed to addressing all comments to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have incorporated my suggestions and I am satisfied this time.
