Digital Technology as a Disentangling Force for Women Entrepreneurs

In response to the first reviewer's comment,

Comment 1: The article effectively contextualizes digital technology within the landscape of women's entrepreneurship, citing both contemporary and foundational studies to support its narrative​​.

Response:  We appreciate your comment.

Comment 2: While most references are relevant and contribute to the discussion on digital empowerment, some citations appear redundant or overly concentrated on specific viewpoints, which could be diversified to enhance the argument's breadth.

Response:  Thank you for this comment. We applied this in the revised manuscript.

Comment 3: The article outlines its research design and methodologies (qualitative and quantitative approaches) but lacks clarity in its research questions and hypotheses, making it difficult to trace the logical progression from research questions to conclusions​​.

Response:  We appreciate this comment. We applied this in the revised version (Green highlights).

Comment 4: The discussion connects digital technologies with empowerment of women entrepreneurs; however, it occasionally presents an unbalanced view that overly favors positive outcomes without sufficiently addressing contradictions or challenges highlighted in some studies​​.

Response: We have made the necessary revisions in the Discussion and Conclusion section.

Comment 5: The results, particularly from the DEMATEL method, are detailed with clear tables and explanations, facilitating an understanding of the impact and interrelations of various drivers on women's entrepreneurship​​.

Response: We appreciate your comment.

Comment 6: The article provides an extensive list of references, demonstrating a broad review of existing literature and integrating diverse sources to substantiate its claims​​.

Response: We appreciate your comment.

Comment 7: Although the article presents data supporting its conclusions, the link between these results and the broader implications for policy and practice could be better articulated to strengthen the final conclusions​​.

Response:  The necessary connections between the results and broader implications for policy and practice have been articulated in the Discussion and Conclusion section.

Comment 8: The paper is generally well-written, but occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasing necessitate minor revisions for clarity and flow.

Response: We appreciate your comment. We rewrote the manuscript to ensure the clarity and lucidity of the text.

In response to the second reviewer's comment,

Comment 1:  According to the authors’ standpoint, digital technologies act as “disentangling force” for women entrepreneurs, since they (digital technologies) have both “empowering potential” and “transformative force” for the same women entrepreneurs – in the particular case of Iran (Abstract). Therefore, the use of such assertive and strong formulations (i.e. “empowering potential” and “transformative force”) must be supported by the research findings. Otherwise, the necessary reformulations are strongly recommended.

Response:  We have incorporated the necessary reformulations to ensure the terms 'empowering potential' and 'transformative force' are clearly supported by the research findings. These changes have been added to the Literature Review section for clarity (Purple highlights).

Comment 2:  In addition: how this “disentangling force” is defined, how it is it assessed (measured), and to what extent it is supported by the research findings – all these remain to be clarified and explained.

Response:  We have clarified the concept of 'disentangling force' and how it is measured in the methodology section as requested (Purple highlights).

Comment 3: The “qualitative literature review” (p.4, line 174) is not a “method” (p.4, line 176). Rephrasing this paragraph is strongly recommended.

Response:  The paragraph has been revised to clarify that the 'qualitative literature review' is not presented as a 'method,' as suggested (Purple highlights).

Comment 4: Since author/s state that DEMATEL is “a well-established quantitative technique” (p.4) – which is true – it is expected to document it and cite appropriate and essential works (i.e. Gabus & Fontela, 1972; …; Sheng-Li et al., 2018), which are actually missing from their references, too.

Response:  Thank you for the suggestion. We have documented the DEMATEL technique and included the appropriate references in the article (Purple highlights).

Comment 5: Did authors make any change / upgrading to DEMANTEL? 

Response:  In this study, the DEMATEL method was used as an analysis technique to identify and prioritize the influencing factors. However, no modifications were made to the core methodology. We followed the standard steps of the method, including calculating the direct relationship matrix and the total relationship matrix, to ensure reliable results (Purple highlights).

Comment 6: Related to the recruitment of the 20 experts panel (p.4, line 192): “minimum of five years of professional experience” and holding “a master’s degree or higher” (p.4, lines 194–196) are not convincing arguments to sustain “extensive knowledge in the field of women’s entrepreneurship and the development of technology-based enterprises, particularly digital platforms” (p.4, lines 193–194). How was the recruitment process conducted? It is strongly recommended to provide more and detailed explanations in this respect.

Response:  "Thank you for the comment. We have provided additional details on the recruitment process for the 20-expert panel, including specific criteria to ensure their extensive knowledge in the field."

Comment 7: Are the above experts the same as “experts familiar with the research topics in the community of Iran” (p.2. lines 96–97)? Coherent formulations would be welcome.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have ensured consistent formulations regarding the experts throughout the article for clarity.

Comment 8: “Expert assessment questionnaires served as the primary data collection tools” (p.4, line 197); it is strongly recommended to elaborate and provide more details (on questionnaires, process, and its inputs and outputs).

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have elaborated on the expert assessment questionnaires, including more details about the process, inputs, and outputs.Top of Form

Comment 9: While explaining the research methodology, it would be essential to present the structure of the two types of questionnaires used (“expert assessment” and “standardized” questionnaires).

Response:  Thank you for the feedback. We have provided a detailed structure of both the 'expert assessment' and 'standardized' questionnaires in the methodology section

Comment 10: It is strongly recommended to make clear if the two types of questionnaires were administered to the same panel of experts or to two different panels.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have clarified whether the two types of questionnaires were given to the same panel of experts or to different panels.

Comment 11: In addition: it is strongly recommended to specify to what extent the panel “experts familiar with the research topics in the community of Iran” (p.2, lines 96–97) are also familiar with Iranian “women entrepreneurs” impacted by force of digital technology (paper title).

Response:  

Comment 12: It is recommended to revise the section 3 (Method and Material) entirely, in order to clearly and more coherently present and explain the methods and instruments used in each stage. A scheme (flowchart) in this regard would help.

Response:  We have revised section 3 (Method and Material) to clearly present the duration, inputs, and outputs of each stage of the research process. This information is now included in the section, highlighted in a different color for easy identification.

Comment 13: In addition, the duration of each stage as well as inputs and outputs expected in each stage of the research process should be presented.

Response:  Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The necessary adjustments have been made.

Comment 14: Complete circumstances of the research as time (year when the study was conducted) and location (Iran? Iran is still a large country) would improve the quality of the paper.

Response:  Thank you for your feedback. The paper has been updated to include the complete circumstances of the research, including the year of the study and a more specific location in Iran.

Comment 15: It is recommended to author/s to highlight the original contributions of their study.

Response:  We have highlighted the original contributions of the study in the Discussion and Conclusion section, emphasizing the unique insights gained through the combined qualitative and quantitative approach. The additions are clearly indicated for easy identification.

Comment 16: It is strongly recommended to author/s to better document the promised focus on women entrepreneurs from Iran by the results of their research. Otherwise, the paper should be reformulated in this respect, from title to Abstract and on.

Response:  We have documented the research focus on women entrepreneurs from Iran by incorporating findings that specifically highlight their experiences with digital technologies in the Discussion section. These findings are clearly presented and emphasized to align with the study's focus.

Comment 17: Related to Table 1: The titles of the first and last columns are missing. They must be declared and inserted in the respective boxes.

Response:  Table 1 has been corrected, and the titles of the first and last columns have been added in their respective boxes.

Comment 18: In addition: the necessary explanations about the numbers between the square brackets must be provided (as it is hard to suppose they uniquely refer to reference numbers/titles).

Response:  We have added the necessary explanations for the numbers in square brackets in Table 1 to clarify their meaning. Each number uniquely refers to a specific reference or title in the bibliography, providing a clear link between the identified drivers and the corresponding sources.

Comment 19: The main result of this study seems to be a set of 16 drivers (D1–D16) selected by author/s as a result of literature survey and accepted after the binomial test; this set is then refined in terms of influential/influenced variables (p.10, lines 279–281). To what extent is this result relevant to Iranian rather than other women entrepreneurs?

Response:  We have addressed this issue in the article by adding a detailed explanation in the Discussion section, which elaborates on how the identified drivers (D1-D16) are particularly relevant to Iranian women entrepreneurs given the unique socio-cultural and economic landscape of Iran.

Comment 20: It is recommended to visibly split the section 4 (Discussion and Conclusion) into (i) concrete discussion and interpretation of results of the study, emphasizing, eventually, contributions as compared to the state-of-the-art literature; and (ii) concluding remarks. Removal of general (although valid) remarks less related to the results of this study is suggested.

Response:  Thank you for your valuable insights. The Conclusion section has been thoroughly revised to incorporate the significant points you highlighted, ensuring a clear separation between the concrete discussion of results and contributions compared to existing literature, as well as the concluding remarks.Top of Form

Comment 21: The “ideal scenario” (p.12) looks like general, wishful thinking. It is not transparent to what extent it is: (i) directly related to the study results; and (ii) more applicable to Iranian women entrepreneurs rather than to global entrepreneurs of all genders. Reformulation is suggested.

Response:  Thank you for your input. The section referring to the "ideal scenario" has been revised to ensure transparency regarding its direct relevance to the study results, particularly emphasizing its applicability to Iranian women entrepreneurs specifically.Top of Form

Comment 22: Under the title “Limitation and future studies” (p.12, lines 381–385) the author/s admitted – as a “constraint” – the limited accuracy of their analyses. They are right.

Response:  Appreciating your valuable feedbac.

Comment 23: The research finding/s may be significant for “other countries experiencing developmental stages” (Abstract). It would be nice to name a few such countries.

Response:  We have included a paragraph in the Discussion and Conclusion section, naming specific countries that could benefit from the research findings, as you suggested. This addition clarifies the global applicability of the study.

Comment 24: It is suggested to split multiple references (e.g., [5,7,8,9], [1,5,6,8] at p.1; [1,2,10,20], etc. at p.3; etc.) more specifically.

Response: We appreaciate your comment. We applied this in the revised version.

In response to the third reviewer's comment,

Comment 1: What's missing in this path, in my opinion, is a more detailed, deeper, direct reference to the Iranian context to further ground the study's rationale. I propose to expand this topic of barriers by indicating economic, social and cultural ones.

Response:  We appreciate your comment. We applied this in the revised version. (Green highlights)

Comment 2: In order to increase the scientific value of the article, I propose a deeper, critical analysis of the methodology and conclusions from the cited studies to more clearly emphasize the research gap.

Response: We appreciate your comment. We applied this in the revised version. (Green highlights)

Comment 3: the research community would benefit from deeper critical engagement with both the data and the literature, particularly when challenging or confirming existing theories in the Iranian context. This would elevate the study from purely informative to potentially transformative in its field.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We've made revisions to the paper to address your concerns and aim to elevate the study through deeper engagement with the data and literature, especially in relation to existing theories in the Iranian context.

Comment 4: the article would gain favor among readers - researchers and scientists - if the authors included a set of variables examined in the questionnaire. The research would be able to be replicated in other countries and regions.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The questionnaire file has been attached for your reference.

In response to the esteemed reviewer's comments

Comment 1: Clarification of the concept “disentangling force” is still difficult cu identify since the Methodology section has many “purple highlights” (former #2).

Response:  We have revised the Methodology section to provide a clearer explanation of the concept "disentangling force" and removed the purple highlights for better readability and understanding.

Comment 2: The structure of the panel of 20 experts from Tehran, Iran is still unclear (e.g., ratio male/female); what about their women entrepreneurship expertise? (former #6; also former #11, which was not addressed at all).

Response:  We have clarified the structure of the panel in the Methodology section. The panel consisted of 20 experts, with a gender ratio of 50% female and 50% male. All selected experts had extensive knowledge and experience in women entrepreneurship, including at least five years of professional experience, relevant academic credentials (master's or PhD), and direct involvement in research or practical projects focused on women's entrepreneurship and digital technologies.

Comment 3: Relative to stage 2 of the research: It is strongly recommended to provide the necessary methodological details about the “five independent experts” (p.6, line 266). Who are they? Is there any connection with the other 20?

Response:  The five independent experts involved in stage 2 of the research were distinct from the panel of 20 experts. They were selected based on their distinguished academic and professional credentials in women's entrepreneurship and digital technologies. Each held a PhD in a relevant discipline, had a minimum of ten years of experience, and a strong publication record in high-impact journals. These independent experts had no direct connection with the initial panel of 20, ensuring unbiased validation of the questionnaire.

Comment 4: The response to (former #8) lacks precision (e.g., How this questionnaire looks like? What about its structure?)

Response: We have provided a detailed description of the questionnaires used in the study. The Binomial Test Questionnaire consisted of two sections: Demographic Information (collecting data on age, education level, area of expertise, and years of professional experience) and Assessment of Factors (using Yes/No questions to determine if participants considered each factor a primary driver in empowering women entrepreneurs). The DEMATEL Analysis Questionnaire also had two sections: Demographic Information and a Pairwise Comparison Matrix (where participants rated the impact of each factor on a scale from 0 (No Influence) to 5 (Very High Influence)). Both questionnaires were validated by five independent experts to ensure clarity, relevance, and reliability.

Comment 5: This suggestion (former #9) stands still: the questionnaires (or their structure at least) are not presented.

Response: The structure and content of the questionnaires have now been included in the Method and Material section, detailing the Binomial Test and DEMATEL Analysis Questionnaires, along with their validation process.

Comment 6: The full circumstances of the research as recommended (e.g., year and duration of the study) are not disclosed yet (former #14).

Response:  The full circumstances of the research have now been disclosed. The study was conducted over the course of one year, from January 2023 to December 2023. The research process was divided into three main stages: a literature review (January to March), expert panel formation and data collection (April to August), and data analysis and validation (September to December). This information has been added and highlighted in the Method and Material section of the article.

Comment 7: It is debatable to what extent the results of studies conducted in other countries (e.g., Indonesia) are relevant for Iranian women (former #19).

Response: We have expanded the Discussion section to address the contextual relevance, comparing our findings with countries like Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and India, while highlighting the unique aspects of the Iranian context.

Comment 8: The section 3 (Method and Material) reads that research is focused on “women-led tech enterprises in Tehran, Iran”. How is this target group visible in the methodology design; how this target group is consulted; and, mainly, how their voice is heard?

Response: The research specifically targeted women-led tech enterprises in Tehran by selecting participants from this group for interviews and focus groups. Their input was used to refine the research questions and validate findings. The voices of these women entrepreneurs were prominently featured in the analysis and discussion sections through direct quotes and case examples. This information has been detailed and highlighted in the Method and Material section.