Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Search
by
  • Patrick Barry 1,
  • Kathryn Cormican 2,* and
  • Sean Browne 1

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Topic

The topic is interesting and current.

 

Introduction

The authors explain the reason for conducting the study, but the choice of research based on the literature is not grounded.

 

Literature Review

Section 2 could be called a literature review.

In the literature review the reader does not find technology from the entrepreneur's perspective highlighted.

 

Methodology

The methodology section could be structured in sections to facilitate the reader's understanding.

It was not identified what is intended to be tested in the fieldwork.

 

Results

There is a results section.

 

Discussion of results

There is a discussion of results section.

The limitations section of the study could be included in section 7.

 

Bibliography

The bibliography is adequate and up to date.

Author Response

Many thanks for your astute observations and insightful comments. I am attaching my responses to each of your observations. 

I hope this meets with your approval and that you feel that our work merits publication in this special issue. 

Kind Regards, 

Kathryn Cormican 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the well-researched, well-written and insightful article, which addresses a relevant issue and which I read with great interest. I find the structure and course of the argumentation easy to follow and the results also appropriately interpreted. I have only a few suggestions and comments.

  1. The study focuses on technology entrepreneurs who, as a specific group, may differ from other entrepreneurs, for example, in terms of their willingness to take risks, internal locus of control and analytical ability. This circumstance could be discussed more broadly and also be reflected more strongly in the literature analysis, in which the authors only make rudimentary use of contributions on technology entrepreneurs.
  2. I would recommend including the questionnaire in the appendix.
  3. The data was collected in Ireland and there may be certain cultural, economic or legal conditions that should be taken into account. However, I am not in a position to finally comment on this.

Author Response

Many thanks for your astute observations and insightful comments. I am attaching my responses to each of your observations. 

I hope this meets with your approval and that you feel that our work merits publication in this special issue. 

Kind Regards, 

Kathryn Cormican 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper 1489459 review to Sustainability – Great minds think alike, fools seldom differ: An empirical analysis of opportunity assessment in technology entrepreneurs

 

All issues raised in this review can be considered to be minor reviews

 

General considerations

The article refers to a theme that has always been crucial for business creation, development and sustainability. Currently still in times of pandemic context, this article presents the fundamental aspects of business creation, through entrepreneurship of ideas and concepts of the types of entrepreneurs that normally exist and promote the sustainability of the businesses and markets where they operate.

Title, Abstract and Keywords

  • The title is appealing and contains key information about the article.
  • The abstract is well constructed and is presented in a structured way with the content of the article.
  • The keywords are appropriate.

Article structure

The structure of the article is well elaborated, with no flaws detected in the numbering of the sections and subsections presented, as well as in the subtitle numeration of the tables presented.

Grammar and spelling

The article is well written in terms of grammar and spelling. Thus, some simple improvements could be done, namely in lines:

  • 171 the first letters of the full description of the acronym PVME must be capitalized;
  • 228 there is an extra space after the references and the period;
  • 316 lacks a comma between the terms "industry" and "etc.";
  • 591 text is missing, after the term "Finally”.

Figures and tables

The tables are well prepared, but there are aspects that should be improved, namely:

  • Under Table 2, an explanatory caption should be indicated on the difference between the terms in the first two lines of the first column, because one is marked with (1) and the other with (2), since the designation is exactly the same;
  • In the last column of Table 4, only gender and age are divided into percentages. It made sense that the other items under analysis were also divided into percentages.
  • When statistical quantities are indicated, they must be spelled out when they appear for the first time in the text, or a caption should be made for them. Namely: n; df and p;
  • In order to better visualize the results and their discussion, presented in sections 4 and 5, and to enrich the article that has no illustrations at all, some charts (bar charts, for example) should be made, including the main results obtained in section 4 and their discussion presented in section 5, that are indicated in the text regarding this sections. If this increases the number of pages of the article too much, the graphs can only be constructed in section 5, because the discussion of the results is presented. The graphics would make this article much more visually appealing in terms of reading.

 

 

Referencing and Reference List

Often throughout the text of the article, the authors present references simultaneously in two different forms: with the last name and year; and with numbering. This aspect needs to be corrected, as only one form of reference should be used.

The list of references is well prepared, the number of references is really high, but it is appropriate to the depth of the theme's approach in the article. The references are strong in the scope of the investigation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Many thanks for your astute observations and insightful comments. I am attaching my responses to each of your observations. 

I hope this meets with your approval and that you feel that our work merits publication in this special issue. 

Kind Regards, 

Kathryn Cormican 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Many thanks for the careful and successful revision of the contribution!