Entrepreneurship Education: Examining Long-Term Effects of a Practical Program Implemented in Children

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for invitation to review the paper entitled: Entrepreneurship Education: Examining Long-Term Effects of a Practical Program Implemented in Children. Its interesting research with data from Mexico.  I hope you find my comments helpful. 

The introduction should explicitly state the research gap or problem that the study aims to address and provide a clear objective statement. This will help readers understand the specific focus of the research and the contribution it aims to make to the existing body of knowledge.

The introduction starts with a general statement about entrepreneurship education (EE) and its benefits, but the subsequent paragraphs introduce specific studies without clear transitions or a concise overview of the main research topic. Consider providing a clearer roadmap of the introduction to help readers understand the flow of the content.

You may provide some extra information about the context of study -San Quintin Valley- in terms of entrepreneurial activities.  What kind of startups are common in this area? Which industrial sectors ….  

You may add a section titled "Limitations of the Study and Future Directions" at the end of the paper. Like other quantitative research, your study suffers from several limitations. In this section, it is important to acknowledge these limitations and discuss their potential impact on the findings. Additionally, providing avenues for future research on this topic will enhance the paper's overall contribution to the field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Good day, and thank you very much for all your comments on the paper. The document has been reviewed and modified to meet your requirements as follows:

An additional section has been inserted in the introduction with information about the issue and context, as well as the research objective. Additionally, information has been added to define entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurship education before presenting the EE studies that have been conducted.

Information about the San Quintín region has also been included, emphasizing its primary agricultural activity.

A section addressing the study's limitations has been added as requested.

We attaching the modified document here.

Thank you again for your feedback, and we look forward to your response.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review this interesting paper. Here are my suggestions:

 

Introduction:

1. The first and second paragraphs are clear.

2. Before you jump to the third paragraph, I suggest briefly explaining the research gap in studying EE and stating the research questions.

3. Before the third paragraph, you may include a new subtitle 'Theoretical Framework.'

4. I understand that there is a word limitation. You can try to state the theoretical concept of EE in the first paragraph of the EE section.

5. I understand the reason for stating 51-76. It is to highlight the research gap. If you have clear research questions, this part can directly relate to them.

6. I have a big question regarding the literature review. How do you distinguish between attitudes, beliefs, competencies, abilities, and mindset? These terms are used across your literature sections. One solution is to define entrepreneurial mindset in the first paragraph. This may help clarify.

 

Methodology:

7. Clear research background.

8. To save wording, I suggest building a table to summarize the stages of the program.

9. Are the assessment tools validated?

10. If not, you need to run EFA and CFA.

11. You need to further explain how to determine the variables and conduct regression analysis. This is unclear. What is the baseline?

 

Results:

12. The general practice of presenting demographics is to move it into the sampling section.

13. I am confused about the results of the regression analysis. Where is the correlation analysis? You jump to regression and test the variables one-by-one. If that's the case, you can skip the correlation analysis. Otherwise, you need to explain how it relates to your hypothesis and link it to the correlation results before moving forward to regression.

 

Conclusion:

14. I agree that there are practical implications. However, you need to explain the theoretical implications of your study. There is no connection between your literature and the findings in terms of theoretical contributions.

 

 

I hope my comments can contribute to further polishing your manuscript. As a scholar studying entrepreneurship education, I look forward to working with the author in the future.

NA

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript and your valuable insights. We have diligently addressed each of your comments to enhance the quality of our research. Below, we outline the key revisions made in response to your suggestions:

Introduction: In response to your suggestion, we have enriched the introduction with additional information concerning the study's context, underlying issues, and the requested theoretical concepts. We have emphasized the core notions of Entrepreneurship Education and Competence, elucidating their significance within the scope of our study.

Methodology: We have incorporated further details on the research background in the methodology section, providing a comprehensive understanding of the study's foundation. Additionally, we have designed a table summarizing the program's sequential stages, offering a clear overview of its progression. Moreover, we have included a table outlining the variables and their dimensions, along with an explanation of their derivation.

Results: Responding to your suggestion, we have integrated a correlation analysis into the results section, providing a more comprehensive insight into the data interpretation.

Conclusion: We agree with your assessment and believe that the modifications we have introduced establish a stronger connection between our findings and the existing literature.

We are truly grateful for your meticulous review, which has significantly contributed to the refinement of our manuscript. Your feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the clarity and coherence of our work. We are confident that the amendments made will enhance the overall quality of the manuscript and its contribution to the field.

Please do not hesitate to reach out if you require any further clarification or if there are additional aspects you would like us to address. We eagerly await your further feedback and guidance.

Thank you once again for your time and expertise.

PD. We have attached the modified document here.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author addressed most of my comments.