Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title is short and appealing.

 

The study fits well in the SI.

 

The abstract needs to be improved. Missing Findings; Practical implications; Originality/value

 

These paragraphs have to be grounded in the literature.

• “The expansion of entrepreneurship support measures, the raise of entrepreneurship awareness, as well as the creation of strong entrepreneurial communities contributed to stimulate a global entrepreneurial climate. Its progressive importance turned entrepreneurship a focal point of interest and raised the attention to a ‘new-fangled’ and multidi mensional paradigm revealing the need to observe the phenomenon through the lens of the individual, the company and the context.
• The encouragement to implement supportive policies towards entrepreneurship in a global scale pushed economies to manage entrepreneurial ecosystems differently trigger ing the emergence of structural differences among underdeveloped, emergent or developed countries. The EEs gained preponderance, their space of action was expanded, leveraging an international perspective around the phenomenon revealing the importance of grasping the different realities. ”

 

The GAP needs to be reinforced with literature. And this sentence too:

• “To the best of our knowledge, no prior research attempts to explore the connection between entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial initiative through a multidimensional perspective using an entrepreneurship policy approach, grounded on a taxonomic model. Inspired by the academic gap, this paper empirically tests a taxonomy aiming to provide an overview of EE differences between countries. ”

 

After this paragraph “To address research questions, the present study splits into two main parts. Firstly, to expose the theoretical multidimensionality of the topic, is conducted a review on the most relevant contributions on entrepreneurial initiative and entrepreneurial ecosystems is conducted. Secondly, the empirical study analyzes economies relying on Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) database, within a timespan of 7 years. ” I recommend posting some of the main results of the study. In this way, it is intended to captivate the reader. Then the authors have to indicate the originality of the study.

 

The literature review is well constructed. However, hypotheses must be formulated.

 

Section 3 has to be the methodology. The methodology has to be detailed. Why did you choose this method and not another? What is the importance of using this method for the topic under study? These questions have to be answered in the methodology.

 

Why do they use data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)?

 

Why motivate the study to only contemplate data between 2010 and 2016? The GEM already has more recent data that it should consider including.

 

The point “4.3. Discussion and policy framework” needs to be developed and discussed with the existing literature.

 

In conclusion, Theoretical Implications and Practical Implications have to be very developed.

 

English needs to be reviewed by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the valuable insights.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is very interesting and appraises the existence of different patterns of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and relationship with Entrepreneurial Initiative.

Authors recognised the academic gap and empirically tested a taxonomy aiming to provide an overview of EE differences between countries. 

In general, I do not have any comments to the article, only one suggestion. Authors justify the choice of countries for the research by the availability of data. However, it would be interesting to study European countries comparing the countries of Western Europe with these of Central and Eastern Europe. This would make it possible to investigate how the political transformation and economic changes influenced the issue of entrepreneurship (especially existence of different patterns of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems) in these countries.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the valuable insights.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors followed all the recommendations. In my opinion the article can be published.

Good luck with the publication.