An Updated Systematic Review of Business Accelerators: Functions, Operation, and Gaps in the Existing Literature

The authors addressed all the comments and incorporated all the minor and major suggestions that were made by the reviewers. The authors are also thankful to the reviewers for their critical thinking and time. All the authors admitted that all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers were genuine and related to our article and we feel that these comments fulfill the missing points and gaps in our article

Comments

Response

I think the methodological could be improved. I don't have enough information about the analysis tool used, as SCIMAT or VOSVIEWER.

As suggested by a worthy reviewer, the mythology section is improved and more information about the software that was used were provided and highlighted in red font.  

Additionally, the figures showed are result of individual analysis of each document or is an automatically analysis?

Well, the first 5 figures were constructed in excel, and the rest were made in illustrator and the ROBVIS tool.

why is the search not limited only to WOS and SCOPUS?

There were previous reviews that were only focused on WOS and Scopus so that’s why the authors decided to use more search platforms in this review to include more articles.

why is business report and articles suitable and it is not better only papers and conferences?

Well, all the research articles that were published in the last 17 years were included in this review. Normally the business reports were excluded due to the limited amount of data and we want to include just authentic data and information.

I don't understand neither why the authors

finally analysed only 53 from 125? only because they can only access to 53 full text?

There are various reasons as described in the inclusion and exclusion heading. Like not full availability of text, 2. Limited information in the article, 3. Flaws in methodology, 4. Out of scope from our research objectives.

Other improvements could be the practical implications of this research work for decision-makers in entrepreneurial ecosystems and, specifically, incubators

As suggested by worthy reviewers statements about the article's practical implications of this research work were now written in the conclusion and outcomes section and highlighted in red font.

Additionally, the future research agenda on this field would be advisable.

The future research agenda was provided now at the end of the conclusions section.

my main reluctance to publish this research

work is that I don't really appreciate that the goals of this research are provided with results and conclusions

Well, the goals and objectives of the current article were provided in three places. 1. End of introduction, 2. In the outcomes section and 3. Conclusions

The authors addressed all the comments and incorporated all the minor and major suggestions that were made by the reviewers. The authors are also thankful to the reviewers for their critical thinking and time. All the authors admitted that all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers were genuine and related to our article and we feel that these comments fulfill the missing points and gaps in our article

Comments

Response

I found some similarities between some

paragraphs of your manuscript and the article available at the address: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10961-019- 09754-9. The paragraphs are mainly between rows 188-190, 198-203, 233-243.

As suggested by a worthy reviewer, the similarity found in these lines was reduced and highlighted in red font.

The clear description of the research gap

and the definition of the research question

The information that was missing in the introduction section was now provided and the research question and research gap were almost mentioned and highlighted in red font.

I recommend you to include in the Introduction some additional references in your work:

As suggested by a worthy reviewer all the mentioned references were included in the manuscript because these were the most relevant references that the authors missed.

Please argue why you decided to remove articles in engineering, medicine and physics because it seems that the articles from these categories are not valuable or relevant.

The research strategy that was designed by the authors decided to not include articles from that field because; 1. To leave it for further research, 2. We did not have any experts from that field therefore we lack expertise 3. The articles found in the mentioned categories have some missing data 4. The articles used a different methodology.

The search took place between 15 July to 15 August 2022". Please clarify if the search action itself took place in this interval, or you selected only the article published in this period of time?

Well, the time in which the articles were searched is between 15 July to 15 August 2022. The articles that were retrieved and included in the systematic review range from 2004 to 2022. It was also now highlighted in red font in methodology.   

Total of 169 articles were retrieved...", but you don't specify the period/time/interval criteria for those articles. Are they the most recent published articles?!

These are the most related and most relevant articles published in the last 17 years on CIMO. The criteria were already mentioned in the literature search strategy and the also in the inclusion and exclusion heading. Articles that were not fully available were then eliminated.

At row 139, the sentence "While 5 studies have no specific geographical location (Figure 3)." should be revised. It has no verb.

As suggested by a worthy reviewer the given sentence was eliminated from the text.

My question/concern is if 53 texts can be considered a solid base for a "systematic" literature review? Please try to argue your choice, your methodology and the

size of the sample. Is the size relevant?

The 53 articles were selected from the 169 articles and these 53 were considered as a base for the systematic review. After cross-checking our methodology and sample size, we are 100% confirm that this is the most relevant size for such systematic reviews.

Figure 3 (the chart) should be of a different type. Instead of line-graph (usually used for time evolutions), you should use a pie-chart (usually used for percentages).

As suggested by a worthy reviewer the graph type was changed from line to pie chart.

At page 10, please specify the sources of the figures 7 and 8.

All the figures’ sources were now mentioned with it in caption heading.

The Conclusions chapter should also be improved by including aspects like: the research limitations, the main findings, the future research directions.

The conclusion section was revised and detail about main findings and the future directions were now provided.

Moreover, a separate heading under conclusion was provided and the research limitation was wrote under that heading and highlighted in red font.

The authors addressed all the comments and incorporated all the minor and major suggestions that were made by the reviewers. The authors are also thankful to the reviewers for their critical thinking and time. All the authors admitted that all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers were genuine and related to our article and we feel that these comments fulfill the missing points and gaps in our article

Comments

Response

The conclusions are very short and it would be better to summarize more extensively the contribution of this work to extant literature.

As suggested by a worthy reviewer the conclusions section was revised and summarized more, changes were made and highlighted in red font. 

I would recommend also to compare the

discussion more in detail with the literature section in order to increase and made more explicit the contribution of your manuscript to the current literature.

As recommended by the reviewer the authors compare their results with the literature to increase the contribution of the study. All the inline and contradictory results were compared with our results. 

The authors addressed all the comments and incorporated all the minor suggestions. All the authors admitted that all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers were genuine and related to our article and we feel that these comments fulfill the missing points and gaps in our article.

Comments

Response

I donot have the clear filters applied to reduce articles from 125 to 53.

Well it was clearly mentioned in the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria heading. Authors read all the 125 articles and after proper discussion we elimintated the articles and choose the 53 articles. Three more reasons were mentioned in the text and highlited in red font. It will be difficult to mention all the A-Z details of each paper that why it is eliminated.

I found some misprints of inly an other words.

I removed all these words and incorporated with correct words.

I did not found details about WOS, Scopus databases etc in text.

The authors suggested that there is no need to mention such details because we go through the literature and also did not found any detail explanation about it in other reviews.

The authors addressed all the comments and incorporated all the minor suggestions that were made by the reviewers. All the authors admitted that all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers were genuine and related to our article and we feel that these comments fulfill the missing points and gaps in our article.

Comments

Response

In line 324 there is a typo mistake of word bhevaiours

As suggested by worthy reviewer the word was corrected.

under the figures 7 and 8 you have the text describing the source. First of all, the word "Consturcted" is wrong. Please correct it. Then, the source of the figure should reveal the "real" source: who/what generated the figure (not the graphical tool used to draw the figures);

Dear reviewer, all the graphs are made by authors using the mentioned tools. The same comment was made by other reviewers and that’s why we incorporated it like that.

In the Conclusions chapter, I recommend you to highlight the managerial implications of your research results. This way, you will justify the utility of your work.

As suggested by worthy reviewer the managerial implications of our research results are highlighted in red font.