Business Incubators, Accelerators, and Performance of Technology-Based Ventures: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the abstract, your findings are not completely clear. Please rewrite the final part of the abstract turning more clear your conclusion. Please state also some type of implication of your study. What is the next step?  What profit can the audience of the journal take from your study?
In the introduction, please avoid lumped references, such as [2,3]. For the audience, usually is important to pinpoint what is the individual contribution of each article, as to use it their own, further research. The first four paragraphs are clear and concise and almost nothing was left behind. Nonetheless, in the next, you make a statement without a derivation, a research caveat (I prefer research gap, but this is a minor question). Please empirically derive your research gap. Why should I believe that your statement “Bearing in mind the caveat found in the literature about the need for providing a systematization about the characteristics of BI and BA and their services portfolio …” is true? You can make it by several means. I personally like positioning the article, there is, given a mainstream (BI, BA), after quickly reviewing recent, cited studies dealing with BI and BA, you may form a suitable set of articles that approaches the theme, except by a single aspect. This is the research gap, stemming from your search. You may consider your own method, but please don´t miss finding an empirical derivation for your gap (and consequent research questions). It would greatly increase the validity of your study.
In the review, please be consistent with the way you make references (see fi … For its turn, Bliemel e De Klerck (2016) idealized BA …, … A recent study by De Brito and Leitão (2021),  Van Eck and Waltman (2010), Tamásy (2007), … among others). Please strongly avoid adjectives, mainly those clamorous, such as infamous. Who made this judgment? Is such a judgment reliable? I suggest avoiding literal citations. Usually, paraphrasing is more suitable in scientific top pieces of work. Regarding your RQ, again your explanation justifies your RQ, but does not ensure that this question is not yet addressed by other studies. Therefore, again, I believe you should perform positioning of your article in front of others, which should, undoubtedly, turn your findings valid and useful for the audience of the journal.
Your chapter three is fine and requires no amendments.
Regarding chapter 4, Figure 2 has an issue. Usually, there is a time delay between publication and citation. Therefore, the number of citations in 2020 and mainly in 2021 is incomplete. I suggest removing these two values and replacing them with previsions, mere extrapolation for a regression model beginning in 2009 and finishing in 2019. It is not uncommon for such kind of assessment.
Please avoid colloquial and/ or redundant expressions such as: … The 1614 PUBLICATIONS were PUBLISHED in 208 journals. NOW examining the journal 227 representativeness, it is possible to see in figure 3 PRESENTED BELOW …. Please revise the entire text. Figures 4 to 7 are almost unreadable. Is it possible to improve them? Figure 8 is better. Your clusterization seems to be a very important contribution (perhaps the most important) of your work. Nonetheless, your taxonomy does not follow the five clusters. I could not get why you have five clusters and three taxons. If you had stipulated five taxons, according to the clusters, I believe your contribution would be a sounder. Is there anything you can do here? If not, please justify from where the taxons stem, how did you derive them. If your taxonomy stems from the research questions, then you may have a tautology. You defined three questions and found three answers that gave rise to three taxons. I believe that your three questions gave rise to five clusters, and this is, in my opinion, the strongest contribution if your study. The same is true regarding fig. 10. From where does the framework stems? What part of the findings contributed to what item of the framework? Please consider if something can be done.
The final chapter should also give clues for further research. Although greatly meritorious, your article has a weakness that can be solved. It barely connects with the mainstream of the journal, open innovation. Please define open and closed innovation (you may use to support your definition, a recent article from the same journal), state how BI and BA can contribute to open innovation and turn clear that your study offers a sense of continuity and completeness regarding the journal.
You have indeed make a good job. It would be my honor to review your next (and possibly last) version of your article.
Best regards  

Author Response

JOItmC-1582108: R1

Business Incubators, Accelerators, and Performance of Technology-Based Ventures: A Systematic Literature Review

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 

REVIEWER 1:

Q1: In the abstract, your findings are not completely clear. Please rewrite the final part of the abstract turning more clear your conclusion. Please state also some type of implication of your study. What is the next step?  What profit can the audience of the journal take from your study?

A1: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and followed the suggestion making the abstract more complete. The following sentence was revised:

This SLR establishes a new taxonomy for BI and BA, based upon three main pillars: Human Capital; Social Capital; and Organizational Capital. BI and BA help in the development of new high-technology ventures, by being facilitators for open innovation practices. This SLR is limited by the literature, as the collection of publications was performed exclusively through ISI Web of Science (WoS). Further research can be made into the modes of how these structures impact open innovation practices at the regional level, using a knowledge spillover approach.

 

Q2: In the introduction, please avoid lumped references, such as [2,3]. For the audience, usually is important to pinpoint what is the individual contribution of each article, as to use it their own, further research.

A2: According to the reviewer’s comment, which we acknowledge, the following new sentence was introduced to better point out the individual contribution of each study: BI are oftentimes viewed as drivers of job creation and thus regional economic development, as they provide several facilities [2], from office space and capital to management support and knowledge [3].

In addition, the remainder of the text was revised, in order to avoid lumped references and to make it possible to identify individual contributions of the referenced works.

 

Q3: The first four paragraphs are clear and concise and almost nothing was left behind. Nonetheless, in the next, you make a statement without a derivation, a research caveat (I prefer research gap, but this is a minor question). Please empirically derive your research gap. Why should I believe that your statement “Bearing in mind the caveat found in the literature about the need for providing a systematization about the characteristics of BI and BA and their services portfolio …” is true? You can make it by several means. I personally like positioning the article, there is, given a mainstream (BI, BA), after quickly reviewing recent, cited studies dealing with BI and BA, you may form a suitable set of articles that approaches the theme, except by a single aspect. This is the research gap, stemming from your search. You may consider your own method, but please don´t miss finding an empirical derivation for your gap (and consequent research questions). It would greatly increase the validity of your study.

A3: We want to thank the reviewer for their comments. We substituted the expression “research caveat” for “research gap” as suggested. We also revised the positioning of the article, finding a research gap stemming from the literature presented.

In the introductory item, the following sentences were revised:

In terms of the research gap found in the literature, it remains to be understood how BI and BA structures can be facilitators for the adoption of open innovation practices.

This systematic literature review (SLR) aims to define a representative taxonomy, which can be useful for entrepreneurs demanding a portfolio of incubation services, which are supplied by this type of supportive structures; and to identify how can BI and BA facilitate open innovation practices. In addition, it aims to advance the still limited knowledge about the modes how incubation and acceleration ecosystems influence the performance of technology-based ventures along their life cycle, facilitating the adoption of open innovation practices. This study, therefore, addresses these gaps.

 

Q4: In the review, please be consistent with the way you make references (see fi … For its turn, Bliemel e De Klerck (2016) idealized BA …, … A recent study by De Brito and Leitão (2021),  Van Eck and Waltman (2010), Tamásy (2007), … among others).

A4: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and revised the sentences in order to ensure the recommended consistency in the citation method of the different reference studies used in this systematic literature review.

Several revisions were performed along the new version of the manuscript. We provide here an example (please see l.139):

A recent study found that open innovation practices with the goal of developing an entrepreneurial ecosystem facilitate network creation, relationships for collaborative work and knowledge flow, partnerships and external links to other networks and firms [13]. Since the introduction of this concept the organizations have opened their research and development processes [38]. There are two pathways for open innovation practices: one, inbound – integrating into the organization, and two – transferring from the organization to the outside. Additionally, these inbound and outbound processes have been identified as having a positive effect on the innovative performance of the firms [39].

 

Q5: Please strongly avoid adjectives, mainly those clamorous, such as infamous. Who made this judgment? Is such a judgment reliable?

A5: We realize the pertinence of the reviewer’s comment and removed the adjective.

 

 

 

Q6: I suggest avoiding literal citations. Usually, paraphrasing is more suitable in scientific top pieces of work.

A6: We want to acknowledge the reviewer for this relevant comment, that we took into account, thus, the literal citations were paraphrased, as suggested.  

 

Q7: Regarding your RQ, again your explanation justifies your RQ, but does not ensure that this question is not yet addressed by other studies. Therefore, again, I believe you should perform positioning of your article in front of others, which should, undoubtedly, turn your findings valid and useful for the audience of the journal.

A7: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and performed a re-positioning of our study, incorporating your highly appreciated comment pointing out the need for framing our study in the scope and aims of the Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. Please consider the following changes (see l. 161) in the main research question (MRQ) and secondary research questions (SRQ):

Taking into account the abovementioned research, this SLR aims to address the following main research question (MRQ):

MRQ: How incubation and acceleration ecosystems foster the adoption of open innovation practices influencing the performance of technology-based ventures along their life cycle?

For better understanding, defining and identifying the most relevant streams of the literature focused on the performance of incubatee startups along their life-cycle, the following secondary research questions (SRQ) were formulated:

SRQ1: Does the specialization of incubation and acceleration ecosystems facilitates the adoption of open innovation practices influencing the performance of technology-based ventures along their life cycle?

SRQ2: What are the types of capital related with the adoption of open innovation practices influencing the performance of technology-based ventures along their life cycle?

SRQ3: What are the research gaps in the literature concerning incubation and acceleration ecosystems, facilitators of open innovation practices, and technology-based ventures performance?

 

Q8: Your chapter three is fine and requires no amendments.
Regarding chapter 4, Figure 2 has an issue. Usually, there is a time delay between publication and citation. Therefore, the number of citations in 2020 and mainly in 2021 is incomplete. I suggest removing these two values and replacing them with previsions, mere extrapolation for a regression model beginning in 2009 and finishing in 2019. It is not uncommon for such kind of assessment.

A8: We are thankful for the reviewer’s suggestion and made the recommended changes in figure 2. As recommended, for the last two years: 2020; and 2021; the expected total number of citations was forecasted by making use of the simple exponential smoothing method, including the mean value and trend for the reference sampling in the 2009-2019 period. 

 

Q9: Please avoid colloquial and/ or redundant expressions such as: … The 1614 PUBLICATIONS were PUBLISHED in 208 journals. NOW examining the journal 227 representativeness, it is possible to see in figure 3 PRESENTED BELOW …. Please revise the entire text.

A9: We are grateful for the reviewer’s very pertinent suggestion and revised the text in order to remove redundant expressions.

 

Q10: Figures 4 to 7 are almost unreadable. Is it possible to improve them? Figure 8 is better.

A10: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and made alterations to the size of the figures and disposition on the page, so that hopefully the figures are more visible now.

 

Q11: Your clusterization seems to be a very important contribution (perhaps the most important) of your work. Nonetheless, your taxonomy does not follow the five clusters. I could not get why you have five clusters and three taxons. If you had stipulated five taxons, according to the clusters, I believe your contribution would be a sounder. Is there anything you can do here? If not, please justify from where the taxons stem, how did you derive them. If your taxonomy stems from the research questions, then you may have a tautology.

A11: We acknowledge and are very thankful for the reviewer’s comments. The taxonomy has been reformulated, and we now have connected the clusters with the type of capital they pertain to, thus giving rise to a new taxonomy, based on human capital, social capital, and organizational capital of BI and BA.

 

Q12: You defined three questions and found three answers that gave rise to three taxons. I believe that your three questions gave rise to five clusters, and this is, in my opinion, the strongest contribution if your study. The same is true regarding fig. 10. From where does the framework stems? What part of the findings contributed to what item of the framework? Please consider if something can be done.

A12: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment, which we incorporated by outlining the contribution, and also eliminated fig 10.

Please refer to the contribution outlined in line 633:

Based on the empirical findings of this SLR, the main contribution resides in the presentation of a new taxonomy (see figure 9) for the classification of BI and BA, according to three pillars: Human Capital; Social Capital; and Organizational Capital. This taxonomy will allow for the unequivocal classification of BI and BA, targeted to facilitating the adoption of open innovation practices.

 

 

 

Q13: The final chapter should also give clues for further research. Although greatly meritorious, your article has a weakness that can be solved. It barely connects with the mainstream of the journal, open innovation. Please define open and closed innovation (you may use to support your definition, a recent article from the same journal), state how BI and BA can contribute to open innovation and turn clear that your study offers a sense of continuity and completeness regarding the journal.

A13: We deeply thank the reviewer’s comments and have integrated open innovation into our study. We truly value this comment, which was used for re-positioning the manuscript, advocating the identification of the capitals of BI and BA, as operational levers for facilitating the adoption of open innovation practices.   

Please refer to the definition of closed versus open innovation presented in section 2. Theoretical framework and research questions (see l.126):

Through an extensive SLR on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, the terms: “innovation”; “clusters”; and “open innovation”; were identified as the three most relevant characteristics for Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, influencing a new definition for this complex concept, where these are identified as an environment where entrepreneurship can flourish, aided by an ensemble of various independent players and factors [32]. In a “Closed Innovation” model, a company does not search for ideas and knowledge form outside its boundaries, but instead the company generates, develops and markets its own knowledge [33], yet a startup’s success can depend on external knowledge flows [10]. That gave rise to a shift in the paradigm [34], from closed to “Open Innovation”, being the sharing of ideas and knowledge from outside a firm into the inside [33] and this type of practices should be endorsed in entrepreneurial ecosystems [13].

 

Also, please refer to section 5. Concluding remarks (see line 654):

This comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) encompassed 1614 publications, obtained through a rigorous data collection process, allowed for the presentation of a new taxonomy of the capitals of BI and BA, here positioned as fundamental levers for facilitating the adoption of open innovation practices.

 

Q14: You have indeed make a good job. It would be my honor to review your next (and possibly last) version of your article. Best regards.  

A14: We’d like to thank the reviewer for providing us with extremely helpful suggestions, that without doubt made a great contribution for improving the quality and scientific soundness of this study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• I thought it was a good job based on SRL
• In page 2 it's written hypothesis development ...in the article are research questions
• There is a clear and exact explanation about Methodological Design, fig 1 help very good
• The results and discussion have a very good sequence plus clusters explanation to answer the research questions
• Give more strength to their conclusions and separate from future research

Author Response

JOItmC-1582108: R1

Business Incubators, Accelerators, and Performance of Technology-Based Ventures: A Systematic Literature Review

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 

 

REVIEWER 2

Q1: I thought it was a good job based on SRL.

A1: We thank the reviewer for their comments.

 

Q2: In page 2 it's written hypothesis development ...in the article are research questions.

A2: We ackwoledge the reviewr’s comment, and changed the term “hypothesis” for “main and secondary research questions”.

 

Q3: There is a clear and exact explanation about Methodological Design, fig 1 help very good.

A3: We thank the reviewer for their comments.

 

 

Q4: The results and discussion have a very good sequence plus clusters explanation to answer the research questions.

A4: We are grateful for the reviewer’s comments.

 

 

Q5: Give more strength to their conclusions and separate from future research.

A5: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and, thus, revised the final section of the study, and divided it into:

5. Concluding remarks

5.1 Debate, limitations and Implications

5.2. Future Research

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have satisfactorily addressed most issues.