Comparative Analysis of the Impact of the Business Incubator Center on the Economic Sustainable Development of Regions in USA and Poland

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the topic of the paper here presented – Business Incubator Center on the Economic Sustainable Development - has some interest for publication in Sustainability journal. However, with regards to this paper, there are many aspects which must be considered before the paper enters for publication. Some stands require more development and framing in order to extract value and contribution from the work.

Some recent researchers have been interested in analyses the topics associated with sustainable entrepreneurship, and given the existing knowledge one needs to be careful to highlight the novelty and value added of each study. So, in “Introduction” section, the author(s) necessity to show how the literature has dealt with the topics in concert and then identify better the gaps that the literature does not deal with which then become the foundation of your research questions. The author(s) necessity to define more clearly the research objectives in “Introduction” section.

The authors should create a new section (literature review) where some theoretical perspectives such as Cooperation University-Industry and triple-helix, to support your study. A theoretical background should be developed.  The contemporary literature on the topics here studied has been developed in a number of widely published journals nearly all of which to be missing from the list of references.

 The authors should also explain the choice of the methodological procedures such as type of study, criteria to select the two incubators, and data collection and analysis.

 Concerning the indicators to measure the effectiveness of the business incubator centers used, the authors explain better this point in your paper… Why these indicators? How your data can form the basis for a research paper? Etc…

 About your results, the cases analysis is poor and reads like a descriptive analysis with little integration and explanation. Overall, I am not convinced that the results can, as such, be a sufficient theoretical contribution in this research area. In addition, along of the paper lacks a more discussion and critical analysis that would ground it in the relevant context(s) and make explicit its value. I really do not feel that the results are rigorous enough as it stands. More discussion about the empirical evidence (cases) is necessary.

 I think that the conclusions could be more extensive. This indicates a lack of implications for theory and practice about this study and to present some suggestions for further studies/perspectives within this research field. Some limitations about this study should be also presented.

Author Response

1. I think that the topic of the paper here presented – Business Incubator Center on the Economic Sustainable Development - has some interest for publication in Sustainability journal. However, with regards to this paper, there are many aspects which must be considered before the paper enters for publication. Some stands require more development and framing in order to extract value and contribution from the work. Some recent researchers have been interested in analyses the topics associated with sustainable entrepreneurship, and given the existing knowledge one needs to be careful to highlight the novelty and value added of each study. So, in “Introduction” section, the author(s) necessity to show how the literature has dealt with the topics in concert and then identify better the gaps that the literature does not deal with which then become the foundation of your research questions. The author(s) necessity to define more clearly the research objectives in “Introduction” section.

-We put objective of the paper in the introduction and also described research questions.

2. The authors should create a new section (literature review) where some theoretical perspectives such as Cooperation University-Industry and triple-helix, to support your study. A theoretical background should be developed. The contemporary literature on the topics here studied has been developed in a number of widely published journals nearly all of which to be missing from the list of references.

-We created new section – the literature review. In this section we described the Triple-Helix model and problems connected with university-industry cooperation. We use the International Journals Papers about the innovation and the Triple Helix model.

3. The authors should also explain the choice of the methodological procedures such as type of study, criteria to select the two incubators, and data collection and analysis. We described those problems in the first part of Material and method section. Concerning the indicators to measure the effectiveness of the business incubator centers used, the authors explain better this point in your paper… Why these indicators? How your data can form the basis for a research paper? Etc…

-In the Material and methods section we described how the indicators were developed and operationalized.

4. About your results, the cases analysis is poor and reads like a descriptive analysis with little integration and explanation. Overall, I am not convinced that the results can, as such, be a sufficient theoretical contribution in this research area. In addition, along of the paper lacks a more discussion and critical analysis that would ground it in the relevant context(s) and make explicit its value. I really do not feel that the results are rigorous enough as it stands. More discussion about the empirical evidence (cases) is necessary.

-We enhance the discussion section.

5. I think that the conclusions could be more extensive. This indicates a lack of implications for theory and practice about this study and to present some suggestions for further studies/perspectives within this research field. Some limitations about this study should be also presented.

-We extended the conclusion with practical implication of the research, the limitation and future perspectives.

Reviewer 2 Report

The study compares the performance of two business incubators in the USA and Poland. The comments below could improve the study.

The introductory section should explain the motivation of the study, its research question(s) and its contributions.

Regarding the structure of the paper, paragraphs should not contain one or two sentences.

What is the time period when the interviews were conducted?

The list of the indicators (social, organizational etc.) should be presented in the form of a table.

The concluding section should discuss what the study is about, its main findings and policy and/or managerial implications of the study.

Author Response

1. The study compares the performance of two business incubators in the USA and Poland. The comments below could improve the study. The introductory section should explain the motivation of the study, its research question(s) and its contributions.

-We describe the scope of the study and research questions in the Introduction section.

2. Regarding the structure of the paper, paragraphs should not contain one or two sentences.

-We adjust the paper to this remark.

3. What is the time period when the interviews were conducted?

-We describe it in the first part of Material and methods section.

4. The list of the indicators (social, organizational etc.) should be presented in the form of a table.

-We have presented it in table.

5. The concluding section should discuss what the study is about, its main findings and policy and/or managerial implications of the study.

-We extended the conclusion with practical implication of the research, the limitation and future perspectives.

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

In general the revised manuscript was improved. Now the revised paper addresses more clearly the purpose and contributions. In Introduction section the authors have established a clear argument with regards to gaps for policy and practice. Now I appreciate the inclusion of Triple Helix model to support the literature review, however, mor linkage of this model could be discussed in results section as well as in managerial and theorectical implications. The paper needs to be present much stronger discussion and conclusion sections in order to offer more value to the reader.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see the response in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments are addressed at a satisfactory level.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.