The Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Networking between Entrepreneurial Alertness and the Success of Entrepreneurial Firms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your submission. I have several suggestions to help improve the clarity and depth of your paper.
Consider revisiting and incorporating literature that has extensively studied the themes presented in your theoretical framework. Emphasize the importance of networking for entrepreneurs by suggesting the inclusion of studies such as
Portuguez-Castro M. Exploring the Potential of Open Innovation for Co-Creation in Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. Administrative Sciences. 2023; 13(9):198. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13090198
Portuguez Castro, M. Ross Scheede, C. & Gómez Zermeño, M. (2020).Entrepreneur profile and entrepreneurship skills: Expert's analysis in the Mexican entrepreneurial ecosystem, 2020 International Conference on Technology and Entrepreneurship - Virtual (ICTE-V), San Jose, CA, USA. DOI: 10.1109/ICTE-V50708.2020.9114372
This will help in establishing a strong foundation for your argument.
Expand the definition of successful entrepreneurship. Discuss the factors that define entrepreneurial success and identify the gaps that exist in the current literature. This will provide a clearer context for your study and highlight the significance of your research.
In the methodology section, please include a detailed description of how the data were analyzed and specify the instruments used.
Develop the implications of your findings further. Expanding this section will allow readers to understand the practical significance of your results. Additionally, compare your findings with the success factors mentioned earlier in your paper to provide a more robust discussion.
I suggest broadening your discussion section by comparing your results with those from other studies. This comparative analysis will help in situating your findings within the broader context of entrepreneurial success and networking.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. I have tried to incorporate all the suggestions that have been made by your kind self. Please check the responses also check the Paper which is uploaded.
Consider revisiting and incorporating literature that has extensively studied the themes presented in your theoretical framework. Emphasize the importance of networking for entrepreneurs by suggesting the inclusion of studies such as
Portuguez-Castro M. Exploring the Potential of Open Innovation for Co-Creation in Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. Administrative Sciences. 2023; 13(9):198. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13090198
Portuguez Castro, M. Ross Scheede, C. & Gómez Zermeño, M. (2020).Entrepreneur profile and entrepreneurship skills: Expert's analysis in the Mexican entrepreneurial ecosystem, 2020 International Conference on Technology and Entrepreneurship - Virtual (ICTE-V), San Jose, CA, USA. DOI: 10.1109/ICTE-V50708.2020.9114372
This will help in establishing a strong foundation for your argument.
Answer:
The paper has been reviewed and citation has been added along with the writeup
Expand the definition of successful entrepreneurship. Discuss the factors that define entrepreneurial success and identify the gaps that exist in the current literature. This will provide a clearer context for your study and highlight the significance of your research.
Answer:
The success has been explained and linked as well with the gap in the literature.
In the methodology section, please include a detailed description of how the data were analyzed and specify the instruments used.
The data analysis section has been added, however, instruments used to collect the data are already there in heading 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
Data analysis has been explained in section 3.4
Develop the implications of your findings further. Expanding this section will allow readers to understand the practical significance of your results. Additionally, compare your findings with the success factors mentioned earlier in your paper to provide a more robust discussion.
I suggest broadening your discussion section by comparing your results with those from other studies. This comparative analysis will help in situating your findings within the broader context of entrepreneurial success and networking.
Answer:
Bo managerial and Practical implications are enhanced by linking with the prior studies.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle sustainability-3021054
Title: Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Networking between Entrepreneurial Alertness and Success of Entrepreneurial Firms
The paper is interesting and has potential for significant contribution. It considers entrepreneurial alertness (EA) and its effect on entrepreneurial success, and the moderating effects of entrepreneurial networks. It brings evidence to bear on the question of whether scanning and exploiting more opportunities benefits entrepreneurship despite the assumed costs.
It draws upon a set of 384 Pakistani small or medium sized manufacturing firms for the period 2000-2003.
Evidence suggests that each of the three dimensions of EA ( notably scanning, linking the dots and evaluating) do indeed have a positive effect on the performance of firms. Social and business networking of entrepreneurs positively moderate these relationships enhancing the effects.
However there are some shortcoming which have to be addressed.
1. First, there is some confusion in presenting the results. Table 4 is appearing in two tables (for validity and direct results respectively). In direct effects, scanning is insignificant at the 5% level but significant at 10% level. As noted in abstract detail (lines 25,26) ,in the full model with moderations ( table 5 ) it turns to significant. Such explanations are nor necessary in the abstract. They would be transferred in the results and discussion sessions.
2. Second , the paper does not provide info about the variables and what they express. Specifically in Table 2 it provides the acronyms of the items of the variables used but the reader cannot find in the text what these acronyms express, what ideas and concepts they measure. At minimum a verbal indication would be helpful.
3. On the same line, performance or “success” is vague. Does it express growth, profitability or other dimensions? Noting the acronyms of the items and referring to other papers used them, is not received an orthodox practice in the literature. It makes the paper depended on other papers which have not been established as standard models in the literature. Probably the refs are to the same researchers. Does the SUSTAINABILITY accepts this?
4. Referring to the theoretical framework and the success of alertness as the ability to act before others begs the question of how spontaneity was measured if at all. This brings in the dimension of speed of response (e.g. lines 52, 74, 384, 465…) . Was this measured by the acronymic items of alertness? Does the theory and hypos actually correspond to what was operationalized? Are the implications built on that?
5. In the theoretical framework and implications the paper suggests that the model relationships refers to the specific institutional and economic context of Pakistan ( see e,g. 458, 490…). At first this raises the question of the role of national context which is another issue with its own literature (e.g. Bordeaux, JBV. 2019). Moreover it may question ab initio the generalizability of results. The authors may claim the model as universal for this type of entrepreneurs (SMEs) and may delegate to future work future work to replicate it in other country settings.
6. In terms of theory it draws upon recourse dependence but it does not get in depth of how hypothesized effects are explicated by the theory. For instance “linking the dots” could be related to orchestration of resources (i.e. orchestration theory) as a side extension or resource dependence.
7. The theoretical and managerial implications of the results should be sharpened and be more specific.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. I have tried to incorporate every suggestion given to improve the quality of the research.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have complied with the requested changes
