Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for this interesting article. Online tools assisting students to develop business plans in natural sciences and engineering studies are worth of investigating. The topic fits well into the scope of the Special Issue.

New approaches to educate natural resources and forestry student in business economy, using online tools is a great and innovative teaching method. It can also help other potential entrepreneurs to create a business plan and evaluate the potential of their business idea.

The article brings new knowledge, but I have some reservations on the structure and content of the article. Overall, the article is difficult to read and follow. It introduces the KABADA in introduction, in the methods and results section which makes it incomprehensive. I would have expected that the tool will be presented in the results section together with the survey results.

The introduction is too long and does not address the research topic appropriately. Generally, the introduction should outline the problem and identify research gaps. The authors explain in detail what entrepreneurship is (sections line 50-64), focusing on self-employment (lines 64-71) and finally with youth entrepreneurship/employment (lines 73-83). Than they jump back to self-employment (lines 84 and following). Than it is not clear if they describe the situation in Czech republic or in general. Then a long section on responsible business follows (staring line 109) including sustainable entrepreneurship (lines 134-323).  There is no clear link between this concept and the online tool. I would suggest restructuring the introduction into sub-sections: one on entrepreneurship and self-employment, one on the theoretical assumptions leading to the model creation, one on the situation in Czech Republic. The introduction should end with the research gap identification and the aim of the article. I miss an introduction on non/existing online tools for business plans development and I also miss the link to forestry as you extensively address in the discussion.

The methods section is too short. Again, it provides a short section of the KABADA tool (lines 234-240), which could be moved to the results section. The methods section as it is written now, does not ensure replicability of the research. You should describe in detail how you tested the applicability of the KABADA tool. It is not clear what the aim of conducting two surveys was and why the authors chose to proceed this way. What questions were the students asked and why?  What was the theoretical background behind the questions? How could they answer (closed-answers questions, Likert scale…). How were the students chosen? How did the questions in the first survey differ from the second one?, etc.

Results section is rather short, divided into two sub-sections. The first one describes the online tool and is well written and easy to understand, it is clear which data and what for it was used. The second section presents survey results. There are too many numbers and brackets, it is not necessary to present both numbers and percentage of respondents´ answers. I would suggest to present the results of the survey in an more interesting format, maybe using tables or charts.

The discussion section does not discuss the findings. In the first section (lines 369-382) discussing sustainable development/responsible entrepreneurship I cannot see a link to the result of the online tool nor survey. Then you discuss the applicability for forest owners and forest enterprises , which you did not mention in the introduction specifically. You should also write a short section on the limitations of KABADA tool and the survey results.

Conclusions are only on the KABADA tool and miss the information on its applicability confirmed by the survey, which you also mention in the abstract.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

We have improved the following: 

The structure of the text was changed, parts of the text were moved, as suggested. The topic was introduced in a more structured way including reserach gaps.  Subsections were used for better comprehension. Information was added on online tools for business plans and relation to forestry. In methods section, more information was provided including the theoretical background. Double numbers and percentages were changed into one form.  

Discussion and conclusions were improved. More literature resources were used.

Thank you for your time. 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has major flaws that need to be addressed before I can consider it suited to be published. Please find bellow some comments and suggestions. I wish you find them useful.

 

Abstract:

The abstract is partially repeated at the beginning of the introduction.

I suggest a reformulation of the abstract to address two issues: i) a more logical sequence of the narrative - starting by introducing the topic and its relevance (not included), then go to method (the sentence “The focus is on non-business students who study natural sciences, engineering and other areas at the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology at Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic” should, therefore be moved down); ii) provide more information about the “experiment” and its objectives (which is important to understand the results, that currently seem quite generic).

 

Introduction:

 

Overall comments:

First, a clarification of the tool, its objectives and application is required here. You say that is a tool to support forestry management, but also a teaching tool and a tool to develop business models. Later you conduct an “experiment” to assess the contribution of the platform to change students’ perceptions on entrepreneurship and their intension to start a new business. 

Since entrepreneurship education and intension is the main issue in the empirical work of, you should dedicate a larger part of the literature review on these topics. In fact, I consider there is a huge gap between the literature review and the empirical research.

In line with the above comments, why does the introduction section devote a large amount of space to sustainable entrepreneurship and business models and then the tool only uses “traditional” canvas BM and not sustainable canvas BM?

The introduction serves also as a literature review section, which makes it long. I suggest that you divide it into sub-sections.

Moreover, the flow of the narrative needs to be improved. For instance, you are talking about entrepreneurship and what triggers it. And then the topic of sustainability and sustainable business emerges suddenly. And after you introduce the topic of sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainable business models.

The section ends abruptly. We can´t understand the relevance of the vast set of concepts and approaches you have discussed.

Finally, there is the need to support claims/arguments by state-of-the art references. Many sentences are not supported, other are supported by low quality references.

 

Detailed comments:

Line 32: “The aim of this contribution…”. Do you mean “the aim of this paper”?

Lines 51 – 55 you need to provide references for the economic, psychological and sociological concepts

Lines 56 – 60 – you need to provide a reference for each one of the sentences.

Line 61 – you need to provide the reference for the Euro flash barometer

Lines 65-67 – you need to provide a reference

Lines 71-72 – This is outdated. You are using 2007 data to support your arguments!

Lines 75-76 – data is also outdated, and you need to provide a reference.

Lines 84-85 – Why is the gender issue introduced?

Lines 100 -02 – a reference is missing. You say “60% of respondents” without mentioning the context

Lines 102-103 – you say: “Lack of funds was found to be the main obstacle in doing business”. What is the relevance and context (source) of this statement?

Lines 11-124 – in this paragraph you need to add references. You have none in the whole paragraph.

Lines 174-176 – You give examples of sustainable business models. I do not agree that start-ups are an example of a sustainable BM. Start-up can adopt or not sustainable BM. I also consider that you should include circular BM as an important example of sustainable BM.

Lines 191-232 – Why are these paragraphs relevant? 

 

Materials and Methods:

I repeat that a clarification of the tool is required here. What are the goals and the contents?

You also do not give any information on the contents of the surveys and the context of application. Were they filled immediately before and after the use of the tool? Were students using the tool at the same time in the same place? How much time does it takes to use the tool?

Line 240: “Authors of this contribution”. Do you mean “Author of this paper”

 

Results:

You start the results section with the presentation of the tool. As I mentioned before this is too late. Moreover, this is not a result. 

The presentation of results needs to be improved. I suggest you present data in tables and/or graphics. I also recommend you  

 

Discussion

Most of the discussion is not related to the empirical analysis. In fact, as I mentioned before there is a huge disconnection between the literature review and the empirical analysis.

 

Conclusion

You do not provide a conclusion. You just provide a brief description of the tool. The conclusion should highlight your main findings, their contribution to academics, practitioners and/or policy makers and the limitations of your research

 

An extensive review of the text is required. You should also harmonize the way you mention the tool (caps or not).

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

We have improved the following: 

The structure of the text was changed, parts of the text were moved, as suggested. The topic was introduced in a more structured way including reserach gaps.  Subsections were used for better comprehension. Information was added on online tools for business plans and relation to forestry. In methods section, more information was provided including the theoretical background. Discussion and conclusions were improved. More literature resources were used.

Your detailed comments related to specific lines were adopted. 

Thank you for your time. 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Your research is interesting; below, I make some comments to you for the betterment of the paper.

1. Abstract: I recommend adding the research implications/contributions at the end of the abstract.

2. Introduction: I recommend separating the introduction (context, gap, justification, contribution) of the literature review. The introduction is too long and gets confusing with this mix with the literature review.

3. Literature Review: I suggest adding a topic with a literature review/theoretical background. It should have subtopics addressing the most relevant theme for the reader to understand your method/results and for you to use as support in the discussion section.

4. Materials and Methods: I recommend adding more specific information about the test, the surveys (scales), the sampling, and the cooperation.

5. Results: I suggest adding two Tables/Figures with the steps/process and another with the overview of the results.

6. Discussion: the authors mention the theoretical background that doesn't exist.. please check it and if you will add one.

6.1. There are data/results in the discussion section, it should be moved to the Results section.

6.2. The discussion needs a more critical and less descriptive approach.

6.3. Please add the theoretical and practical implications

7. Conclusions: I recommend adding the study's limitations and contributions for future research (based on your analysis/discussion/limitations).

I wish you success in your endeavours. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

We have improved the following: 

The structure of the text was changed, parts of the text were moved. The topic was introduced in a more structured way including reserach gaps.  Subsections were used for better comprehension. Information was added on online tools for business plans and relation to forestry. In methods section, more information was provided including the theoretical background. 

Discussion and conclusions were improved. More literature resources were used.

Thank you for your time. 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for your submission of the article. The article is an interesting analysis of a digital approach to entrepreneurial competence development based on the KABADA tool.

 After carefully reading I have to state that the manuscript submitted contains many shortages.

The paper does not report scientific and sound analysis. It is not clear to me

-  what is the main research problem?

- what is the research gap?

- what is the theoretical or practical contribution of the paper? 

 

Comments on individual parts:

·          The Abstract does not include a clear research objective, methods used as well as implications. The abstract needs to address the motivations, contributions, and results of the work, concisely, clearly, and persuasively. However, one vital question the reader asks from the abstract is the following; why is this topic important? I suggest author(s) add an answer to that question to the abstract.

 ·          The introduction section is not written clearly based on an existing theory. The revised introduction should have the following flow: Brief overview -> Importance of topic/domain -> Research Problem -> Research Gap between this study and existing theory (based on the theoretical trigger)--> aims/objectives -> overview of remaining sections. Please find the research gap and then underline how you are going to fill it based on the current literature. Please highlight what is the theoretical relevance of this particular study using the state of the art in literature.

 ·          The design and methodology of the research need to be more detailed and consistent. A precise data analysis method used in this study should be explained and justified. What are the pros and cons? How did you provide reliability and validity? What were the criteria for sampling selection?

 

Things to keep in mind when presenting the results of a study using quantitative methods:

·        Explain the data collected and their statistical treatment as well as all relevant results in relation to the research problem you are investigating. Interpretation of results is not appropriate in this section.

·        Report unanticipated events that occurred during your data collection. Explain how the actual analysis differs from the planned analysis. Explain your handling of missing data and why any missing data does not undermine the validity of your analysis.

·        Choose a sufficient statistical procedure; provide a rationale for its use and a reference for it. Specify any computer programs used.

·        Describe the assumptions for each procedure and the steps you took to ensure that they were not violated.

·        Provide the descriptive statistics, confidence intervals, and sample sizes for each variable as well as the value of the test statistic, its direction, the degrees of freedom, and the significance level.

 ·          The data is interpreted well. However, due to the lack of research questions or hypotheses, the analysis remains not clear. What was the main research goal of this analysis?

 The finding of your study should be written objectively and in a succinct and precise format. In quantitative studies, it is common to use graphs, tables, charts, and other non-textual elements to help the reader understand the data. Make sure that non-textual elements do not stand in isolation from the text but are being used to supplement the overall description of the results and to help clarify key points being made.

 ·          The “Discussion” section includes a limited reflection of how the findings relate to other research focused on similar problems. To increase the significance of the research results, the discussion part should embrace the differences and similarities among your findings and those of other scholars.

 ·          The main conclusions are presented very modestly, Furthermore, they should be improved with some comments on the limitations of this study and future studies.

 ·          Despite the need to provide detailed evidence to convince readers, there are a lot of shortcomings in the paper that do not allow me to accept the paper in its current form. I recommend improving the paper by significant and intensive analysis and including my reservations mentioned above.

 ·          The academic language is correct, however the expressions, wording, style, and abbreviation - might be improved. General proofreading would be advisable.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

We have improved the following: 

The structure of the text was changed, parts of the text were moved. The topic was introduced in a more structured way including reserach gaps.  Subsections were used for better comprehension. Information was added on online tools for business plans and relation to forestry. In methods section, more information was provided including the theoretical background. 

Discussion and conclusions were improved. More literature resources were used.

Thank you for your time. 

 

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you very much for allowing me to review this paper. This an interesting paper to propose KABADA (Knowledge Alliance of Business Idea Assessment: 12 Digital Approach) as an exceptional tool.  The purpose of this study could be written more clearly in the abstract and introduction sections of the paper. Certainly, the authors have made significant discussions about its impact and made a significant contribution to relevant academic and practitioner literature.  However, I think your introduction should have a few more citations to justify the problem statement properly. I also think that your introduction section is too lengthy, and it is better to have a separate section- Literature Review and move some of your discussion to the literature review section. Experimental research is a good choice, but the justification could be better. Results and discussion seem OK to me. The conclusions section is very brief, and some additional recommendations and limitations could be added in this section. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

We have improved the following: 

The structure of the text was changed, parts of the text were moved, as suggested. The topic was introduced in a more structured way including reserach gaps.  Subsections were used for better comprehension. Information was added on online tools for business plans and relation to forestry. In methods section, more information was provided including the theoretical background. 

Discussion and conclusions were improved. More literature resources were used.

Thank you for your time. 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the improved manuscript.

You have made substantial changes, which in my opinion did not quite contribute to a better flow and clarity of the presented results. You increased the length of the text.

The introduction is too long, the subdivision is inappropriate where you have two short subsections 1.1 and 1.2, and very long subsections 1.3 and 1.4. I find the information presented in subsection 1.3 not so relevant to the topic, it could be shortened and merged with section 1.4 which I find was adequately added to the text. I would suggest merging subsections 1.1 with 1.2. and 1.3 with 1.4 but at the same time reducing the text and making it more comprehensive.

The methods section and Results have been improved. I still have reservations about the replicability f the experiment.

The discussion section is not really a discussion, the text that has been added (lines 749-742) is not a discussion just statements without any reference relevance to existing literature.

 

I still miss a paragraph on the limitations of the study and critical assessment of the Kabada tool. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your important comments.

Based on your comments, the introduction was made shorter, the subdivision of chapters was changed and hopefully made more comprehensive. 

The methods section was improved, adding detailed information about the structure of survey. In the results section, the information about limitations, critical assessment and future research was added. 

The discussion section was slightly changed in terms of relevance to existing literature mentioned before.  

Thank you again for consideration.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision addressed some of my previous comments and I consider that you have managed to substantially improved the paper.

However, I believe you still need to improve some issues, already raised in my previous comments. The ones I find more critical are:

In the methods section, I still miss some details on how the "experiment" was conducted. You do not give any information on the contents of the survey and its application.

You should also include the limitations of your research in the conclusions.

Line 457: This is the first time you used the KABADA acronym in the paper so you should present it (an not in line 502)

Line 459: KABADA instead of Kabada

Author Response

Thank you for your important comments.

Based on your comments, the methods section was improved, adding detailed information about the structure of survey. In the results section, the information about limitations, critical assessment and future research was added. 

The name KABADA was correctly mentioned in the text.

Thank you again for consideration.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Your revision substantially improved the article. However, I maintain my previous comment about the conclusion section.

It is crucial to present the research limitations and clear suggestions for future research (including those based on the research limitations).

Sucess with your future endeavors.

Author Response

Thank you for your important comments.

Based on your comments, in the results ans conclusion section, the information about limitations, critical assessment and future research was added. 

We have also improved the methods section, adding detailed information about the structure of survey. 

Thank you again for consideration.