The Role of Entrepreneurial Marketing in the Indonesian Agro-Based Industry Cluster to Face the ASEAN Economic Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper aims to develop a model for the agro-industry Micro-Small Medium Enterprises to face the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) through entrepreneurial marketing approaches. This research has been conducted at three centers of agro-based industry clusters in Indonesia.

I find the manuscript interesting and eligible for publication, after taking into consideration the comments below:

• The authors referred to the importance of the agro-industry sector. They reported that (line 35-40): „The agro-industry is one of the significant 35 industrial clusters with positive contribution to both Indonesia’s GDP (Gross Domestic 36 Product) and employment prospects. Based on the 2015 Ministry of Industry data, the 37 agro-industry contributed 45.84% to GDP, an increase from 44.64% in the previous year 38 [1,2]. The same data source indicates that the number of workers in the agro-industry 39 had also increased in 2014 by 2.9% from 1.66 million in 2013 to 1.71 million”.

Please explain what the reasons were for these changes. Was agriculture or only industry included in this sector?

• Line 243 - the bibliographical reference is inappropriate.
• The discussion section makes too little reference to the findings of other authors.
• It is recommended to enrich the bibliography.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Title of the manuscript needs revision, starting from Role of Entrepreneurial Marketing in ................

2. The write-up of the manuscript needs improvements. Authors are required to get the manuscript proof-read by native English speaker as there are typo, grammatical and punctuation mistakes, for example:

The following phrases appear with and without a hyphen:

• ‘agro industry’ / ‘agro-industry’ 1 time without a hyphen 19 times with
• ‘fruit-processing’ / ‘fruit processing’ 1 time with a hyphen 15 times without

Spelled in two different ways:

• ‘modelling’ / ‘modeling’ modelling 2 times modeling 3 times

3. Abstract section is not up to the mark and includes unnecessary information. Please refer to the "Instructions for Authors" on the journal website for guidance. What is an appropriate policy? (Line 19 of the abstract page). Moreover, there should not be too much about the limitation of the study in the abstract. Please state few most viable results, suggestions for improvement followed by the limitation. Keyword also need revision. As stated in the abstract, "Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalizability", then why did the authors select this approach?

4. Introduction: The abstract starts from, "The study aims to develop a model for the agro-industry Micro-Small Medium Enterprises to face the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) through entrepreneurial marketing approaches." On the other hand, introduction starts with, "The large-scale production, processing, and packaging of food using modern equipment and methods is often referred to as “The Agro-industry”. So, what about the small-scale production, processing, and packaging? Are they not included in "Agro-industry"?  Both the statements are confusing. Please add clarity to your work.

5. Authors need to add latest references but the present references are too old. Only a few up to date references have been referenced in the manuscript.

6. Need for the project/rationale should have been discussed in the introduction section.

7. What are the objectives of study? Please explain the objectives of underlying manuscript clearly.

8. Figure 1 needs to be adjusted properly.

9. Data Collection section can be strengthened by explaining more about the dataset. Sample size is limited to 93 respondents, need explanation and how this number was estimated?

10. Theoretical and empirical framework need improvements. they do not provide sufficient basis for the study. More explanation and engagement with the study objectives is required.

11. The discussion extrapolates the results reported and insufficiently reflects the statistical analyses, it seems to simply discuss the results of the existing literature, without firmly positioning this paper's own contribution.

12. Conclusion is poor, should be inline with the findings. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. This article study the issue of agro-industry Micro-Small Medium Enterprises facing the ASEAN Economic Community which has been implemented since 2015. So that the formation of the model to deal with the AEC is not updated. It should be more appropriate to focus on discussing the post AEC and what to do after the AEC is almost over.
2. The use of data in the introduction on line 37-40 is not the latest data
3. Research contributions are not clearly explained
4. The researches use the 132 classification of MSMEs as stated in Law Number 20, Year 2008 regarding Micro, Small 133 and Medium Enterprises, even though there is already a new law related to the MSME category as stated in Law Number 7, Year 2021
5. Figure 1 is cut off, so it looks incomplete
6. In the Data Collection sub-section it is not explained when data collection is carried out
7. Regarding the Reason to start business data in Table 1, are there no respondents who started a business because of a government program
8. The results and discussions are actually adequate, it's just that the discussion is less relevant to current conditions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the time and effort by the authors in improving the manuscript but as a reviewer, it is a task to critically examine the papers and suggest improvements. So, as a reviewer, my comments and suggestions for the manuscript titled, "Entrepreneurial Marketing’s Role in The Indonesian Agro-Based Industry Cluster to Face The ASEAN Economic Community" are as follows:

1. Title of the manuscript seems ok now.

2. Authors confirm that the manuscript has now been proofread by a native English speaker and have checked to improve the quality of the manuscript and the phrases mentioned in my previous review have also been fixed. But I can see minor improvements in seeking authors' attention.

3.  Abstract section has been improved but still, It is not up to the mark. Sustainability is among very well reputed journals maintaining a high level of research and writeup. The abstract needs to be updated accordingly. A flow of information/ consistency is missing. It is like bits and pieces of information poorly arranged. 

4. Introduction section has been improved as advised. 

Line 90: Correction needed: The specific objectives of this research "are"

5. Updated references can be seen there in the references section but still some self-highlighted references are missing (Line 55-61). Maybe authors overlooked or by mistake missed them. Please add accordingly.

6. Authors have mixed the objectives of the study with the need/rationale of the study.  I would suggest authors clearly describe for the interest of readers and to gain weight for their research what was the specific reason behind developing to develop agro-based industries in order for them to recognize their internal problems, as well as the general marketing challenges, such as implementations within the AEC. Why did the authors conduct this study? What was the motivation? 

7 - 8: amended accordingly. Objectives of the study have been added and the figure is now organized well in form.

9. The question of 93 respondents is still unanswered. Did the authors use any specific formula to calculate the sample size? (Convenience sampling techniques also serve the purpose) If the authors want to add more in this section, would be great otherwise in the present form, to me it is acceptable.

10. Figure 1: "Initial research model" there is no other model in the manuscript. so, despite the initial, it should be "basic" or simply a "research model"

Additionally, please reconsider the previous comment on this aspect and there is a dire need to strengthen this section. This is the main pathway toward getting the results. What is the theory, you followed while conducting this research? How did you translate this theory to econometric analysis? Please add more detail for a better understanding of the readers. 

11. Please strengthen your conclusion a bit more especially in the light of specific findings of the underlying study. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I still find it difficult to accept this article because the primary data is already in 2016 which to explain current conditions is less relevant. Please make a research framework  so that there is a common thread with the current condition

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Please make a research framework  so that there is a common thread with the current condition. The authors have not revised as referee required.