Development of Business Schools in Emerging Markets: Learning through Adoption and Adaptation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper on a topic of interest.
On overall, the paper has a rather descriptive character and more in-depth conceptualizing, comparative approaches would improve the quality of the paper.
A better connection with the literature is recommended: the adoption and adaptation strategies stated in the title are to be discussed in the discussion/conclusion sections by connecting your findings to the mentioned theories.
Methodology is to be improved. See bellow.
The common themes identified in all BS to be presented in am more organized manner (possible as a table/figure).
English proofreading is needed (especially for the abstract)
More recent 2019-2020 bibliographical sources on the topic, will do.
More punctual suggestions for improvement are:
- depict/describe from the very beginning Global North; Global South
- section 2, when talking about the Gordon-Howell report, the main idea of the report is to be included in the text
- describe traditional BS model
- section 2.3. talks about studies about "Development of business schools in emerging markets", pointing on the topics they included but without including results obtained in those studies (R 185-192)
- the paper proposes a conceptual framework. Conceptual framework for what?
- Table 1 complete the title: Relevant factors and dimensions for ......?????
- in the methodology section, ears 287-290, the no. of BS not clear. Revise
- The stages of data collection not clear, either. First stage: discussions with whom? analyses of what?, etc. In stage 2: the purposes of the interviews are not clear They are not stated. In the third stage, what secondary information do you talk about? More methodological details are needed.
- section raws 335-346 talks about some general methodological considerations. But it seems that you did not apply those in your research. If they do, you need to detail, if they don't only keep those relevant, otherwise, the text becomes confusing as far as the methodology is concerned
- the structure of the research questions is mentioned at the beginning of section 4, but the research questions have not been introduced. They need to be stated earlier in the paper. The latest under the methodological section.
- place in time the establishment of BS3 (years)
- acronym IIMs to be explained in thetext
- Section 5: name and describe the assumptions considered for the case studies (raw 776 - not clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As suggested by the editor, I am providing brief comments. Please use the feedback as you see fit.
- The article is well organized and written for a large audience. It is easy to follow. The structure helps a reader unfamiliar with this topic to grasp the knowledge.
- I do understand you promised anonymity to the BS. However, the description of the case studies is very specific. Could the authors better explain what the schools would lose by making their names explicit? If the identities need to be kept secret, then it is important to understand how this selected sample of 7 cases compares with the BS in EM overall. A comparison with the full sample on some basic characteristics would help to understand a bit more how/why these cases were selected.
- Related to the above point, it is also not very transparent how the selection of the case studies has been made and why. Specifically in page 7-8 a list of criteria is reported, but the criteria are not precise. Few examples:
- “They provide a balance..” – does this mean 50-50 split?
- “represent a good balance..” – what do you mean with “good”?
- why more cases were selected in certain countries and only one in other continents?
I would suggest the authors improve this explanation since the research focuses on the cases to answer the broad research questions. Also, how were the interviews conducted? Which information was asked? It would be nice to have more description of each method used.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting and deals with current issues, important from the EM perspective. I would only suggest highlighting the direction in which further research should be carried out in this matter.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
