Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Bibliometric Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
The paper is well composed, the structure is correct, and the basic argument is very interesting. My basic recommendation is to analyze in depth the SBLR process used and to enrich the bibliography (eg
-Del Vecchio, P., Secundo, G., Mele, G. and Passiante, G. (2021), "Sustainable entrepreneurship education for circular economy: emerging perspectives in Europe", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 2096-2124. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2021-0210
- Fauske, I. M., Vallipuram, H., Foldnes, B. E., Verhulst, E., Wigger, K., & Solvoll, S. (2022). Teaching sustainable entrepreneurship: Learning approaches, pedagogical methods and teaching tools.
Finally, the discussion section is almost absent, without opening any discussion on, for example, the applications of the particular methodological framework or its limitations. It would be useful to identify research priorities and to analyze more future research directions.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions,
Two references were added to the main text
Headings were changed to ‘theoretical perspectives and discussion’ and ‘conclusion and limitations’, as it embraces both a comprehensive discussion and limitations and further research avenues, respectively.
We believe we have implemented the suggestions and answered the questions
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Introduction: the authors mention that "The importance of entrepreneurship in addressing social, environmental, and economic hurdles is central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals". However, no further context is provided as to how and why enterpreneurship is important for this aim. The authors should delve a bit deeper into the background and justification aspect for their research topic.
Methods: "business, management and accounting" is used as a fundamental keyword to trim down the number of results. It would be, therefore, interesting to the reader if the authors provided some rationale for it, particularly to explain the role of the concept of enterpreneurship within this subject.
Theoretical perspectives:it would be useful to describe under a separate paragraph the notion of entrepreneurship and its relation to the macro-subject of business, management and acccounting.
A separate Results section is needed to provide possible connections between the theoretical perspectives. The Conclusions sections should be separated from the immediate results and additionally include the study's implications for academia and practice, limitations, and future research outlook.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions,
Text was introduced to explain deeper into the background and justification aspect for their research topic in Introduction and methods to better frame the concept of entrepreneurship in the discussed categories.
The same in the section Discussion
A separate Results section was build
The Conclusions sections were separated
We believe we have implemented the suggestions and answered the questions
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
I have read with a great deal of interest your manuscript. Despite the merit of the research subject, the manuscript needs major alterations in order to reach the academic standards required for publication by Sustainability Journal. Please take into consideration the following suggestions.
After Introduction, a section regarding a brief and compelling literature review in regard to the main keywords in required
The Methodology section is missing and the title in the text is misleading since it does not match the contents; therefore, a Method section needs to be added where it must be explained the premises, research resources, the structural pattern of the bibliometric analysis. mor4eover, data in regard to the construction and visualization of the bibliometric maps tool needs to be added, while the choice needs to be supported with literature.
A research model would also benefit the framework of literature mapping
The research Questions are also missing
You might explain the bias coming from choosing only one database for the analysis
Another title in regard to the Data Collection must be added where definitions of research parameters, keywords, the establishment of the databases used, and the definition of the filtering criteria, supported by appropriate literature resources, who regard data collection as only the processes of obtaining, uploading, converting, and refining the data must be provided; here you may refer to data by following the next research pattern:
Setting Academic Databases and Additional Sources of Documentation
Setting Search Parameters
Setting Keywords and Designing the Queries
Refining
Only after this research methodology becomes clear, you may describe your Data analysis within another Section, with a detailed reporting, but not limited on data such as publication years, scientific categories, corresponding authors data, relevant sources, citations.
Subsequently, a section in regard to your data visualisation - deemed as necesary, designed to identify the set of answers to research questions (singular or multiple). As an example, you may integrate here an analysis, but not resuming to, the source and author cocitations, the coauthorship clusters, and the co-occurrence of the keywords.
The results need to be approached in the light of previous research within a Discussion section, followed by Conclusions and future developments.
Best regards,
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor spelling and typing errors detected
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions,
Theoretical framework (the problem) and ensuing research question were set in the introduction section. The theoretical trends and inherent discussion are developed in section iv - Discussion. A previous literature review would be a lit review inner a lit review, resulting redundant and useless.
New text on the definition of keywords was inserted in the introduction section to better frame de initial research problem.
Scopus database was used because it is the most encompassing and comprehensive in scientific research, which enables to saturate the bibliographic research process.
In Materials and Methods the procedures are explained, on the other hand, if we changed the methodological process we would change the objective of the study and we would have articles other than these. Thank you for the suggestion for a future article.
Sections and sub sections of ‘Discussion’, ‘Results’ and ‘Future Research’, were added
We believe we have implemented the suggestions and answered the questions
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors.
To many repetitions (com. „sustainable” in Abstract)
Table 1. “Fase” Are You a Portuguese?
Please, be so kind and send this paper to a native speaker
Line 521-527
I strongly suggest to extend this part. Consider, as below (it should be useful, as “Europe” is quite missing in Your study and it has many valuable authors worth mentioning).
Janowski, A., Gonchar, O., & Yakovyshyn, R. (2023). Education vs. Entrepreneurship – Between Theory and Practice: The Case of SMEs in Poland. E&M Economics and Management, 26(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2023-1-007
Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning en- trepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2515127417737286
Kind Regards
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Dear Editor-in-Chief.
This paper it is "the old wine in a new bottle". Yet, there are some attributes in it.
The English should be corrected.
Kind Regards
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions,
Grammar errors were corrected
Two additional references were added
We believe we have implemented the suggestions and answered the questions
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
I appreciate most of your changes and they lead to a now complete contribution.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Thanks for your helpful suggestions on how to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
I have read your manuscript and it seems that you could not follow the previous recommendations that urge your paper in order to be published.
Under Materials and Methods you have an paragraph that should be assigned as the last one from Introdustion, describing “The study is organized into the following sections:…”
Further within the document, the steps recommended previously need to be followed.
The Literature review needs to cover more than two paragraphs. Please see to that
The Methodology section is missing and the title in the text is misleading since it does not match the contents; therefore, a Method section needs to be added where it must be explained the premises, research resources, the structural pattern of the bibliometric analysis. mor4eover, data in regard to the construction and visualization of the bibliometric maps tool needs to be added, while the choice needs to be supported with literature.
A research model would also benefit the framework of literature mapping
The research Questions are also missing
You might explain the bias coming from choosing only one database for the analysis
Another title in regard to the Data Collection must be added where definitions of research parameters, keywords, the establishment of the databases used, and the definition of the filtering criteria, supported by appropriate literature resources, who regard data collection as only the processes of obtaining, uploading, converting, and refining the data must be provided; here you may refer to data by following the next research pattern:
Setting Academic Databases and Additional Sources of Documentation
Setting Search Parameters
Setting Keywords and Designing the Queries
Refining
Only after this research methodology becomes clear, you may describe your Data analysis within another Section, with a detailed reporting, but not limited on data such as publication years, scientific categories, corresponding authors data, relevant sources, citations.
Subsequently, a section in regard to your data visualisation - deemed as necesary, designed to identify the set of answers to research questions (singular or multiple). As an example, you may integrate here an analysis, but not resuming to, the source and author cocitations, the coauthorship clusters, and the co-occurrence of the keywords.
Best regards,
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor English language errors detected
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks again for your helpful suggestions in order to improve the current manuscript.
Please, find enclosed the corrected text with correspondent comments, namely:
- A paragraph that was relocated in the end of Introdustion, describing “The study is organized into the following sections:...”
- An additional section with a preliminary literature review
- A new section of Methodology, in which is explained the premises, research resources, the structural pattern of the bibliometric analysis.
- The output of the visualization bibliometric tool is explained in detail in a new section of Results, although already explained in the discussion section. Here, the research question is answered and an integrative analysis is done in terms of co-occurrence of the keywords.
- The research Question has always been there since beginning: What is known in the literature about education for sustainable entrepreneurship?
- The choice and ensuing bias of choosing only one database is explained in detail.
- A Data Collection heading was added in the methods section, in which, coherently,research, parameters, keywords, databases used, definition of the filtering criteria, processes of obtaining, uploading, converting, and refining the data, were provided.
Many thanks again,
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
To whom it may concern,
The authors of the current Manuscript refuse to provide a version with a complete and academically valid research methodology.
I provided for them 2 examples of articles published within Mdpi, one of which is mine. I provided for them the clear instructions that I DO NOT require for citations, I simply want to help them reaching their goal.
Given the length of the review process, unless the Methodology section of the current manuscript is not clearly stated, I Do Not support this manuscript for publication.
Best regards,
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Dear Authors,
After reading your revised manuscript, several aspects impose the alleged changes.
Please read and English proof your entire manuscript, since examples such as the following may be found within the entire text “Entrepreneurship pro-vides a unique input to sustainability by strengthen local capabilities..”
Additionally, you cannot use expressions such as “plus four 247 additional pieces of literature suggested by the reviewers,” within the main text of the manuscript.
The Methodology is incomplete and unclear. I previously recommended you to add the alleged subtitles, and instead you just integrated my words within a text. This is wrong.
In order to see a good example of such analysis, you may consult the following titles
Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Societal Technological Megatrends: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1982 to 2021 (mdpi.com)
IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Assessment of a Workforce Sustainability Tool through Leadership and Digitalization (mdpi.com)
Please consider these Titles just for information support and DO NOT consider it as provided for citation!
Please prepare your text by respecting the Required Academic Procedures in this regard.
Do not reply to the reviewers by addressing them within the text.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your suggestions and patience, once again.
The method section was rebuilt following your proposal.
