Exploring the Formation of Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions among Chinese University Students: A Dual Path Moderated Mediation Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSustainable development and entrepreneurship are crucial areas in both educational and governmental policy, highlighting the relevance of this study's topic. Furthermore, the Authors propose a model that integrates entrepreneurial cognition theory and empathy theory, which aids in a deeper understanding of the factors influencing sustainable entrepreneurship among students.
The text of the article and its abstract meet the classical requirements for scientific papers. The literature review on the research topic is conducted thoroughly. The rationale for the research topic is well-founded. The study is based on two theories: entrepreneurial cognition theory and empathy theory. It is noteworthy that the Authors proposed integrating empathy into the theoretical foundation of sustainable entrepreneurship, examining how different levels of empathy moderate the impact of sustainable entrepreneurship education.
The article proposed nine research hypotheses, all of which were supported by the study's results. The research surveyed 307 students from universities in the Yangtze River Delta region. The reliability and validity tests conducted in the study are commendable. It is important to emphasize that the use of a moderated mediation model in the study was a successful choice, as it allows for an understanding of more complex interactions between variables, aligning with the article's objectives.
The article includes research limitations and recommendations for future research directions, which provide a better understanding of the context and applicability of the study's findings.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your careful reading and evaluation of our work, and we are very grateful for your affirmation of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study considers various aspects of sustainable entrepreneurship education and clearly presents the conclusions. In future research, a broader range of perspectives, such as different cultures (in this research should be mentioned that didn't take this aspect into account) , could be included to enhance the quality and increase the overall credibility and applicability of the research findings. Moreover, to strengthen the rigor and reproducibility of this study, I recommend that the authors provide the full questionnaire used in their research, detailing which items were allocated to each specific construct. Including this information would significantly enhance the transparency and methodological soundness of the work. Additionally, it is crucial for the authors to compare their items and constructs with those utilized in previous studies. This comparison would not only validate the consistency and alignment of their measurement tools with established research but also facilitate future researchers in building upon their findings. Providing this level of detail is essential for ensuring the reliability and continued scholarly impact of the study.
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thank you very much for dedicating time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions and have made our utmost effort to revise the paper accordingly. We have taken into account the role of cultural factors in future research and provided a more detailed description of the scales used in our study. We are grateful for your assistance in enhancing the quality of our article. Please find below our detailed responses to your comments, with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the resubmitted files.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: In future research, a broader range of perspectives, such as different cultures (in this research should be mentioned that didn't take this aspect into account), could be included to enhance the quality and increase the overall credibility and applicability of the research findings.
|
||
|
Response 1: |
||
|
Thank you for your constructive suggestions concerning the future research directions section of our manuscript. In studies on entrepreneurial intentions, factors such as cultural backgrounds are frequently acknowledged as potential influences (Cai et al., 2022; Eid et al., 2023). Within varying cultural contexts, individuals hold distinct values, which may lead them to perceive society and environmental issues from different perspectives. These divergent viewpoints can significantly impact their willingness to establish sustainable enterprises. In response to your comments, we have updated the section 5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions in our manuscript. We have included a discussion on the potential to explore the impacts of cultural background, major, educational level, and prior experiences on sustainable entrepreneurship in future studies.
Lines 673-678: “Research also highlights the impact of cultural background, major, educational level, and prior experiences on entrepreneurial intentions [21,79]. For instance, prior business experience may reduce willingness towards sustainable entrepreneurship [54]. Consequently, future studies could explore the varying effects of sustainable entrepreneurship education on students from diverse cultural backgrounds and those with different majors and educational levels.”
Thank you for highlighting the significance of cultural and background factors in our study. We believe that further exploration of these aspects will enhance our understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship and look forward to incorporating this perspective more comprehensively in our future research.
References: 1. Cai, X., Hussain, S., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Factors that can promote the green entrepreneurial intention of college students: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 776886. 2. Eid, N. A. A., Alkhathlan, K. A., Haque, M. I., Alkhateeb, T. T. Y., Mahmoud, D. H., Eliw, M., & Adow, A. H. (2023). Exploring the Entrepreneurial Intentions of Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University Students and the University’s Role Aligned with Vision 2030. Sustainability, 15(24), 16769.
Comments 2: |
||
|
Moreover, to strengthen the rigor and reproducibility of this study, I recommend that the authors provide the full questionnaire used in their research, detailing which items were allocated to each specific construct. Including this information would significantly enhance the transparency and methodological soundness of the work. Additionally, it is crucial for the authors to compare their items and constructs with those utilized in previous studies. This comparison would not only validate the consistency and alignment of their measurement tools with established research but also facilitate future researchers in building upon their findings. Providing this level of detail is essential for ensuring the reliability and continued scholarly impact of the study.
Response 2:
|
||
|
Thank you for your insightful comments and the opportunity to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of our study. We appreciate your recommendations regarding the transparency of our research methodology and agree that providing detailed information about our questionnaire item and the alignment of our constructs with prior research is crucial. Firstly, we have included the full questionnaire in the Appendix section of our manuscript (lines 706-708). Each item within the questionnaire is now clearly linked to its corresponding construct, as suggested. This addition will allow readers and future researchers to fully understand the scope and application of each item, thus enhancing the methodological soundness of our work. Secondly, we have enriched the section 3.2 Measures of our manuscript by including detailed content on the initial development process and subsequent revisions of our questionnaire (lines 431-434). This addition ensures that the outcomes of our measurements align with the intended meanings of the original constructs. We believe this will not only validate our methodology but also aid future researchers in building upon our findings, ensuring continuity and relevance within the research community. “Following the “translation and back-translation” method [87], the translation process was carried out collaboratively by PhD students who are fluent in English and the authors of this study; the consistency of the items in the scale and the content of the original scale were ensured. Insights from interviews with three students engaged in sustainable entrepreneurship education led to revisions in the survey questions. These were further refined through discussions with three professors in the related field. Before conducting the official survey, ten students from various majors were recruited to pre-fill the questionnaire, and the wording of the question items was improved to better suit university students.”
Furthermore, we presented results of our scale’s validity and reliability tests in Section 4.1 and Table 1 of the manuscript (lines 465-476). These results demonstrate that the scales used for each variable provide appropriate measurements and support the robustness of our methodological approach. “This study utilized SPSS 26 and Mplus 8 to conduct reliability and validity tests. As shown in Table 1, the Cronbach’s α values for the variables all exceeded 0.75, indicating that all scales demonstrated good reliability. The composite reliability (CR) values were all above 0.7, suggesting that the scales have satisfactory convergent validity. The square root values of the average variance extracted (AVE) for the variables all exceeded the Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 3), demonstrating strong discriminant validity.” We hope these modifications address your concerns and significantly improve the quality and impact of our research. Thank you once again for your constructive critique and guidance. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
Generally, the article has a proper structure. However, some points need to be fixed. Please consider all the comments below:
1. Repetitive information: In most sections, such as the abstract, the introduction, and the literature review, there is an issue.
2. While sustainable entrepreneurship and its related education are defined, the definitions lack depth. More detailed examples or case studies illustrating these concepts would provide better context and understanding.
3. The literature review part cites past research without critically evaluating or discussing potential limitations or gaps in these studies. A more balanced approach would consider counterarguments or areas where further research is needed.
4. The hypotheses are embedded within the text, making them less noticeable. Listing them separately and clearly would improve readability and help the reader follow the proposed research model.
5. The methods section does not provide a clear rationale for selecting the universities and disciplines. It would be beneficial to explain why these specific universities and disciplines were chosen and how they represent the broader student population in China.
6. Using online platforms for survey distribution may introduce self-selection bias, as only students who are active on these platforms and willing to participate in online surveys would respond. This could limit the generalizability of the findings.
7. While the translation and back-translation process is mentioned, limited information is available on how the survey was initially developed and validated. Additional details on the development and pilot testing of the survey instrument would strengthen the credibility of the methodology.
8. The survey distribution period is confined to June to July 2023, right after the spring/summer semester. This timing might affect students' response rate and mindset, as they might be preoccupied with end-of-semester activities or transition between academic terms.
9. The "discussion and conclusion" part heavily emphasizes theoretical implications without adequately discussing how these findings can be practically applied. This can make the study seem disconnected from real-world applications and less relevant to practitioners.
10. Although practical implications are mentioned, the discussion is relatively superficial. It lacks specific, actionable recommendations for universities, policymakers, and educators on effectively implementing sustainable entrepreneurship education.
11. The discussion mentions the limitation of not exploring actual sustainable entrepreneurship behavior due to the delayed impact of education. However, it does not propose a concrete methodology for how future research can address this issue, such as specific longitudinal study designs or data collection strategies.
12. The discussion lacks a critical evaluation of the study's methodology and results. More emphasis on potential biases, limitations of the survey instrument, and alternative interpretations of the findings would strengthen the credibility and robustness of the conclusions drawn.
13. There are some errors in the reference list.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt just needs some minor corrections.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work. In response to your suggestions, we have refined repetitive content, deepened the definitions of our key variables, and expanded the discussion of past literature. Additionally, we have addressed some concerns in the methods section and made modifications to enhance its scientific rigor. Furthermore, we have expanded our discussion of the potential practical implications of our research.
Please find the detailed responses in the attachment and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. We hope these revisions meet your concerns and significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAt the outset, I must appreciate the intention of the authors to treat such a difficult and current topic.
In the introduction, which is rather too extensive, I recommend more strongly establishing the reasons and needs of the scientific study. I also do not find a clearly defined main goal and secondary goals. As part of such extensive research, I appreciate the establishment of nine hypotheses. however, it is necessary to reject the hypotheses in the connected discussion with the conclusion or you confirm.
In the second chapter, I also miss the legislative side of business, which sets boundaries for all entrepreneurs, not just students. Authors such as:
Peráček T. & Kaššaj M. (2023). A Critical Analysis of the Rights and Obligations of the Manager of a Limited Liability Company: Managerial Legislative Basis. Laws. 12 (3):56. pp. 1-21. doi: 10.3390/laws12030056
Funta, R. Competition Law Aspects of Amazon's Business Model. Criticism of Law, 2023, 15(2), pp. 23–38, doi: 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.592
In my opinion, the used scientific research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, should be detailed and at least partially characterized and justified their significance for the individual parts of the study. However, do not forget the inherent need for such methods as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction. Their meaning and use for individual parts of the manuscript should be indicated as. You can also find inspiration in this question in the work of the authors Peráček & Kaššaj, 2023.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. In accordance with your suggestions, we have restructured the introduction to better highlight the main goals of our research. Additionally, we have incorporated consideration of legal aspects relevant to sustainable entrepreneurship.
Please find the detailed responses in the attachment and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the resubmitted files. Thank you once again for your guidance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The article looks better in its revised form. I can suggest an acceptance.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some minor issues that can be done easily.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
based on the changes made, it is possible to agree to the publication of the manuscript.
Reviewer
