Next Article in Journal
A Scientometric Study on Depression among University Students in East Asia: Research and System Insufficiencies?
Next Article in Special Issue
High-Growth Aspirations of Entrepreneurs in Latin America: Do Alliances Matter?
Previous Article in Journal
Household Food Waste: A Case Study in Southern Italy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Wavelet Coherence: Service Sector Index and Economic Growth in an Emerging Market
Article
Peer-Review Record

Transforming Turkish Universities to Entrepreneurial Universities for Sustainability: From Strategy to Practice

Sustainability 2020, 12(4), 1496; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041496
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(4), 1496; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041496
Received: 19 January 2020 / Revised: 15 February 2020 / Accepted: 16 February 2020 / Published: 17 February 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, authors aim to determine where Turkish universities stand on the transformation of entrepreneurial university using data from 59 public universities’ strategic plans. Although the article falls within the thematic area of the journal, there are major issues to be solved by the authors:

Section 2. Evolution of Universities and the Entrepreneurial University- the authors should introduce a section regarding sustainability in universities. Also, authors should consider more relevant papers in the field, focusing on MDPI relevant papers. Section 3. Strategic planning and the universities should be moved to Section 2 as a section. Section 4. Method- raises the biggest concerns and in my opinion should be re redesigned. The authors should present research methodology, sample features, how the authors define the data involved in research, the relevance of the context, measurement model used by authors, the construct reliability etc.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

 

 

Point 1: In this manuscript, authors aim to determine where Turkish universities stand on the transformation of entrepreneurial university using data from 59 public universities’ strategic plans. Although the article falls within the thematic area of the journal, there are major issues to be solved by the authors: Section 2. Evolution of Universities and the Entrepreneurial University- the authors should introduce a section regarding sustainability in universities. Also, authors should consider more relevant papers in the field, focusing on MDPI relevant papers.

 

Response 1: Dear reviewer, as suggested, a new section “Sustainability in the Universities” is added.

 

Point 2: Section 3. Strategic planning and the universities should be moved to Section 2 as a section.

 

Response 2: Thanks a lot for this comment; it is moved to Section-2.

 

Point 3: Section 4. Method- raises the biggest concerns and in my opinion should be re redesigned. The authors should present research methodology, sample features, how the authors define the data involved in research, the relevance of the context, measurement model used by authors, the construct reliability etc.

 

Response 3: As advised, this section is rewritten. It is a qualitative research and some of the issues (like measurement model) can be applied to the paper.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

At lines 69-70 you write: “there does not seem to be any factor that forces the state universities in Turkey to become entrepreneurial universities”

 

On the contrary, at lines 73-76 you write “The increasing demands and pressures of government, local governments and important stakeholders such as partners, students, parents and industrialists on universities and the expectations of the universities to create marketable value for the society are undoubtedly forcing Turkish universities to evolve into entrepreneurial universities”.

 

Paragraph 3 is just 28 lines long and almost useless, given that at the beginning of paragraph 4 you recall the POSP and government’s website, where those informations can be found.

 

Line 259 you write “creating new and creative ideas”. I think it should be used another definition, avoiding expressions that sound like “creating is creating”.

 

Universities are not grouped in possibly different groups, in relation to any dimensions, such as: number of students; number of researchers; kind of Courses activated; geographical position, etc…

 

Only one statistical dimension is analysed: “frequency” of some words. For example, there is no referring to the frequency of these words and the recent, possible, change of other dimensions of the related University, such as: number of students; varying of a certain number of researchers; activation of new degree Courses, undergraduate or PostGraduate, or Doctoral Courses…

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: At lines 69-70 you write: “there does not seem to be any factor that forces the state universities in Turkey to become entrepreneurial universities”. On the contrary, at lines 73-76 you write “The increasing demands and pressures of government, local governments and important stakeholders such as partners, students, parents and industrialists on universities and the expectations of the universities to create marketable value for the society are undoubtedly forcing Turkish universities to evolve into entrepreneurial universities”.

 

Response 1: Dear reviewer, as suggested, this clash has been corrected..

 

Point 2: Paragraph 3 is just 28 lines long and almost useless, given that at the beginning of paragraph 4 you recall the POSP and government’s website, where those informations can be found.

Response 2: Thanks a lot for this comment; it is corrected

 

 

Point 3: Line 259 you write “creating new and creative ideas”. I think it should be used another definition, avoiding expressions that sound like “creating is creating”.

 

Response 3: Thanks a lot for this comment; it is corrected.

 

Point 4: Universities are not grouped in possibly different groups, in relation to any dimensions, such as: number of students; number of researchers; kind of Courses activated; geographical position, etc…

 

Response 4: Thanks a lot for this comment; those figures are not supplied in the strategic plans..

 

Point 5: Only one statistical dimension is analysed: “frequency” of some words. For example, there is no referring to the frequency of these words and the recent, possible, change of other dimensions of the related University, such as: number of students; varying of a certain number of researchers; activation of new degree Courses, undergraduate or PostGraduate, or Doctoral Courses…

 

Response 5: Thanks a lot for this comment; those figures are not presented in the strategic plans. This paper focuses only on the strategic plans.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is an obvious improvement over the previous versions. However, I believe that bibliographic references should be improved, both for sustainability and sustainability on universities. For example, I recommend studying and including in the manuscript the following references:

Kang, S, Na, Y.K. (2020). Effects of Strategy Characteristics for Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Sharing Economy Businesses on Creating Shared Value and Performance, Sustainability, 12(4), 1397.

Brent Edwards, D. Jr.,Sustarsic, M., Chiba,M., McCormick, M., Goo,M.,  Perriton, S. (2020). Achieving and Monitoring Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Sustainability, 12(4), 1383.

Ceptureanu, S.I., Ceptureanu, E.G., Bogdan, V.L., Radulescu, V. (2018). Sustainability Perceptions in Romanian Non-Profit Organizations: An Exploratory Study Using Success Factor Analysis, Sustainability, 10(2), 294.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The manuscript is an obvious improvement over the previous versions. However, I believe that bibliographic references should be improved, both for sustainability and sustainability on universities. For example, I recommend studying and including in the manuscript the following references:

Kang, S, Na, Y.K. (2020). Effects of Strategy Characteristics for Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Sharing Economy Businesses on Creating Shared Value and Performance, Sustainability, 12(4), 1397.

Brent Edwards, D. Jr.,Sustarsic, M., Chiba,M., McCormick, M., Goo,M., Perriton, S. (2020). Achieving and Monitoring Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Sustainability, 12(4), 1383.

Ceptureanu, S.I., Ceptureanu, E.G., Bogdan, V.L., Radulescu, V. (2018). Sustainability Perceptions in Romanian Non-Profit Organizations: An Exploratory Study Using Success Factor Analysis, Sustainability, 10(2), 294.

 

Response 1: Dear Reviewer 1, thanks a lot for this comment. New references are included.

Reviewer 2 Report

First.

In paragraph 3.1 you write:

"" RQ1: “What is the strategic intentions of Turkish public universities on the transformation to entrepreneurial universities?”. RQ2: “Are the Turkish public universities entrepreneurial universities?” ""

but in paragraph 5. Discussion and Conclusion, you write: "The first question sought in the scope of the research was “are Turkish Uniiversities entrepreneurial universities?”. You changed the sequence of the RQs and this is important, because of causal relations between RQs. I think that RQ1 could become RQ2 and vice versa.

Second.

When you discuss the results, in the same paragraph 5, you draw down the answers to the RQs in about 36 lines but in the remaining 34 lines you firstly introduce another RQ ("Is such a transformation necessary and, if necessary, how can it be carried out?") and then spend a lot of considerations on this topic. Could this subject be part of the RQs?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

 

 

Point 1: In paragraph 3.1 you write:

"" RQ1: “What is the strategic intentions of Turkish public universities on the transformation to entrepreneurial universities?”. RQ2: “Are the Turkish public universities entrepreneurial universities?” ""

but in paragraph 5. Discussion and Conclusion, you write: "The first question sought in the scope of the research was “are Turkish Uniiversities entrepreneurial universities?”. You changed the sequence of the RQs and this is important, because of causal relations between RQs. I think that RQ1 could become RQ2 and vice versa.

 

Response 1: Dear reviewer, as suggested, the sequence has been corrected.

 

Point 2: When you discuss the results, in the same paragraph 5, you draw down the answers to the RQs in about 36 lines but in the remaining 34 lines you firstly introduce another RQ ("Is such a transformation necessary and, if necessary, how can it be carried out?") and then spend a lot of considerations on this topic. Could this subject be part of the RQs?

 

Response 2: Thanks a lot for this comment. A new part is added to second RQ about the necessity.

Back to TopTop