ICT Access and Entrepreneurship in the Open Innovation Dynamic Context: Evidence from OECD Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper must be developed better. The main issue is the methodology part - practically there is no methodology. A research study cannot just contemplate, should conduct a rigorous analysis. The research methodology part is quite poorly done and needs remaking. The other sections must be revised as well. The paper seems rather incomplete in shape. Once you have properly developed the methodology section, you will know what needs to be added in the other sections.
So they need to change their methodology to a more sound one. They can see other similar studies or they can conduct a systematic literature review.
I hope this answers your question
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our paper “ICT access and entrepreneurship in the open innovation dynamic context: evidence from OECD countries” to the Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time and reviewing our paper. We have revised the paper according to the suggestions, which particularly helped to clarify some inaccuracies. As a result, we believe that the quality of the paper has much improved. Please see below our response to the reviewer comments (held in blue) and a description of the changes in the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study makes a contribution to the rationale of resource-based theory by demonstrating that information and communications technologies (ICTs) are a valuable resource for boosting the capabilities of creating, collecting, processing, and interpreting information. The purpose of this research is to fill in a hole that already exists in the academic community as a result of the dearth of studies that indicate how ICTs influence the formation of new businesses.
My findings are given as under:
- The hypothesis testing, analysis, and discussion may be expanded and elaborated in order to provide the readers with a more complete grasp of the topic at hand.
- The usage of language and the application of grammar are appropriate. The organization and composition are acceptable, but there are some typos throughout the document. As a result, I would propose that you do a complete review.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our paper “ICT access and entrepreneurship in the open innovation dynamic context: evidence from OECD countries” to the Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time and reviewing our paper. We have revised the paper according to the suggestions, which particularly helped to clarify some inaccuracies. As a result, we believe that the quality of the paper has much improved. Please see below our response to the reviewer comments (held in blue) and a description of the changes in the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I would have liked the article to contain more information about the data used (only their source and size are mentioned) and about the applied research method, in order to verify the real contribution of the authors to the research results. Otherwise, congratulations to the authors for the studied bibliography and the correlations made!
Supplement：
The manuscript is well written, well structured, but it's just like that I'm blindfolded. For me, there is a lot of missing information: - They talk about 400 observations made by another institution (but not a word about these observations, do the readers need to write some other reports or scientific articles to have a general view over the research?). - a sample composed by 37 OECD countries in the time period from 2000 to 2019?! Do I have to know about this? I think more details should be delivered for the readers; - the dependent and independent variables were collected by the World Bank: some details? How were the variables used by other authors? There were a lot of other authors only mentioned in the article, but nothing about their work or their results related to the present research! - I don't know how the data in Table 2 and in Table 3 were obtained... There is a research method (CMM) and an equation, but no data... Sorry, but I can't check the veracity and importance of the data...Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our paper “ICT access and entrepreneurship in the open innovation dynamic context: evidence from OECD countries” to the Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time and reviewing our paper. We have revised the paper according to the suggestions, which particularly helped to clarify some inaccuracies. As a result, we believe that the quality of the paper has much improved. Please see below our response to the reviewer comments (held in blue) and a description of the changes in the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I can see the improvements in the paper.
Author Response
In the last revision, the description of the research method was introduced in detail in section 3. The methodology section 3 was also significantly improved, including new statistical analyzes and results. Thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
