Predicting the Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurship Intentions of Business School Students: The Role of Individualistic Values
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. In general, the writing structure is very good. However, no novelty and contribution were found because the variables used had been studied for a long time.
Even though this work contributes to the research theme, the current manuscript has several issues that need to be considered. I listed some comments that I hope the author(s) will find them useful in improving the paper.
1. The introduction part needs to be further explained.
General information could be explained including the research problem, research gap, underpinning theories, and how all constructs in this study should be studied.
2. Hypothesis development
Please provide a more reasonable argument and underpinning linkage between planned behavior theory's determinants and sustainable entrepreneurship intention.
Please also recheck the theoretical framework and hypothesis development. They should be aligned and linked.
Finally, this is the biggest concern. As there were no formulated hypotheses of the moderation effects of individualistic values on the relationship between the three determinants of Planned behavior theory and dependent variable, please greatly revise this section.
3. Research methodology section needs to provide an explanation of the positivistic worldview and quantitative cross-sectional survey design. Why this study adopted this approach? and why?
4. In the Measures section. The author (s) should provide and clarify each of dimension with example question items and reliability values such as Cronbach's alpha etc. Therefore,table4 should be moved to this section with all question items' details.
5. In the result section. The author(s) should provide a path coefficient diagram in this section.
6. Discussion section needs to be further revised.
Please argue, explain, and compare the research findings with the related works. The authors need to provide more supporting shreds of evidence on the results found from this study. Are there any contradictory or in line with this research results? and in what aspects?
7. In the Implication section, please separate and identify the theoretical and managerial contribution.
Author Response
Please see the attached report and manuscripts. One manuscript is clean and the other one has highlights.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I read your manuscript entitled, " Predicting the sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship intentions of business school students: the role of individualistic values". By applying the TPB, this study investigates the determinants of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship intentions among business school students. The topic of this paper is very interesting. However, the following points are worthy of consideration to improve the manuscript’s comprehensibility.
Abstract
1. The abstract should be written as a whole without dividing it into subsections (background, methods, results, conclusions).
Introduction
2. The authors are highly encouraged to clarify the research gap of this study.
Theoretical framework and literature review
3. The theoretical framework and literature review should be a separate section (2).
4. The literature section can benefit from additional updated and relevant references. Examples of papers that may be helpful are given below:
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2021.1918615
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00289-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101657
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2020.1837057
Research methodology
5. In the target population and data collection subsection, a complete description of how data were acquired (data collection technique, data collection period, etc.) should be included.
6. The authors are asked to clarify the sampling method applied in this study.
7. As the data collection was done using Google forms, I would be interested to know whether or not the authors conducted a pretesting of the questionnaire to ensure its comprehensibility.
8. The partial least squares structural equation modelling technique was employed for hypothesis testing, so it is preferable to explain why it was used. Specifically, why did you choose PLS-SEM instead of CB-SEM?
Findings
9. Please provide a brief description of the descriptive statistics shown in Table 1
10. To assess the discriminant validity, the authors used the criterion of cross loadings, which is not sufficient. Hence, it is necessary to introduce other essential criteria for checking the outer models' discriminant validity, including the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio.
11. I ask the authors to provide further important criteria for checking the structural model, including the effect size (f2), and the model goodness-of-fit (GoF).
12. Usually (***) are used for emphasizing the level of significance of relationships between variables (p-value< 0.05*; p-value < 0.01**; p-value < 0.001***). For this reason, in table 6 it is better to use the sign NS (not significant) instead of (*) for rejected hypotheses. As it is possible to specify the level of significance for the supported hypotheses by using (*), (**), and (***).
Discussion
13. I encourage authors to further expand the discussion section by considering other recent relevant studies. It is crucial to highlight what findings mean in a broader context. This will help link your study to other scientific contributions.
Minor issues:
14. Please reduce the index of similarity, which is currently 23%. If it is about one of your earlier works, kindly avoid self-plagiarism, by reformulating the plagiarized sentences.
15. Please check the section and subsections numbering. I suggest structuring this article in the following way:
"1. Introduction
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1. Theory of planned behaviour
2.2. Hypothesis development
3. Research methodology
4. Findings
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion"
16. I recommend considering the "implications (5), and limitations and areas for further research (6)" as subsections of the conclusion section.
17. The authors are kindly invited to attach the research questionnaire as an appendix.
18. Avoid using captures for figures and tables, because they are illegible. I encourage authors to include the original figures and tables for additional clarity.
19. In lines 230-231 "As a result, the following hypotheses are proposed:" Incomplete sentences. Please add H6, H7, and H8.
20. In line 417, please insert the subsection number.
21. I can note that reference citations in the text do not appear in the references section. Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa). For instance, "Thompson (2009); Krueger and Brazeal, (1994)", do not appear in the reference list.
22. Some references do not appear in-text citations. For instance
Ø Kebede, G.F. (2018), “Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Outcomes: Evidence from Informal Sector Entrepreneurs in Ethiopia”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 209–242
23. Kindly includes an in-text citation in the research methodology section if you would like to cite your data set. "Ndofirepi, T., (2022), “Sustainable entrepreneurship intentions”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/7txf9sjv88.1"
24. Error in-text citations. For instance
Ø In line 221 "Zeffane, 2013", please correct it "Zeffane, 2014".
Ø In line 241 "Hatak et al., 2011", please correct it "Hatak et al., 2015".
Ø In line 504 "Dagiliūtė et al., 2018", please correct it, "Dagiliūtė et al., 2015"
25. Some English editing is needed to correct the various grammatical errors present in the manuscript, for instance
· In line 42, " thus, the call for businesses to pursue a balance of environmental, eco-nomic"
· Line 46, " eco-friendly prac-tices and preparing future generations by creating"
· Line 47, " opportunities to study the latest advance-ments and developmental"
· Line 48, " In several indus-trialised nations"
· Line 52, " universities have increasingly as-sumed a leadership position in regional "
· Line 63, " Even though values and be-havioural intentions "
· Line 70, " by the concomitant costs of environmental de-terioration"
· Line 72, " associated with entrepre-neurial intentions "
I strongly recommend professional proofreading for the entire manuscript.
I hope these comments are useful for further steps.
All the best
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your effort in revising this menuscript.
The current verion of manuscript been been improved. However, I have three main sugestions as follows;
First, in the hypothesis development section (Hypotheses1-8), please provide more literature or supporting research work related to planned behavior theory's determinants and sustainable entrepreneurial intention. The current version explianning and supporting general entreprenuerial intention only.
Second, in the hypothesis development section (Hypotheses 6-8),the moderating effects of individulistic values are missing. Please add them and this should be aligned with the path cofficient result in the table 6.
Third, the questionaire bearing the measuring scales cannot be found in the appendix one. Please recheck them.
All the best,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This revised manuscript has been enhanced significantly, necessitating only minor revisions as follows:
1. As you have included a new table on HTMT values (Table 6), I recommend reviewing the table numbering. Therefore, the path coefficients should be shown in Table 7.
2. As suggested in the first revision, it is better to use the sign NS (not significant) instead of (*) for rejected hypotheses. As it is possible to specify in Table 7, the level of significance for supported hypothesis by using p-value< 0.05*; p-value < 0.01**; and p-value < 0.001***.
3. In lines 263-264 "As a result, the following hypotheses are proposed": Incomplete sentences.
4. I can note that reference citations in the text do not appear in the references section. Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa). For instance, "Thompson (2009); Krueger and Brazeal, (1994)", do not appear in the reference list.
5. Some references do not appear in-text citations. For instance
· Kebede, G.F. (2018), “Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Outcomes: Evidence from Informal Sector Entrepreneurs in Ethiopia”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 209–242
· Kindly includes an in-text citation in the research methodology section if you would like to cite your data set. "Ndofirepi, T., (2022), “Sustainable entrepreneurship intentions”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/7txf9sjv88.1"
6. Error in-text citations. For instance
· In line 253 "Zeffane, 2013", please correct it "Zeffane, 2014".
· In line 274 "Hatak et al., 2011", please correct it "Hatak et al., 2015".
· In line 576 "Dagiliūtė et al., 2018", please correct it, "Dagiliūtė et al., 2015"
All the best,
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
