You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Zonglong Li1,
  • Wenyi Zhang2,3,* and
  • Minqiang Zhang1,5,6,7,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Ching Yin Ip Reviewer 2: Ludi Wishnu Wardana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Literature review:

Is there a theory which can serve as a foundation in developing this research model? The theoretical foundation can be enhanced.

Method:

Please provide the specific period in which the data was collected.

Discussion:

The authors should discuss more on the possible reasons for the significance of different variables. Does certain characteristics of sample in this study (Chinese students) contribute to the significance of variables? (e.g. culture)

Does these results echo with prior studies? Any differences observed when comparing to results in prior studies?

Regarding contributions, more details can be elucidated. For example, “this paper extended the concept from entrepreneurial risk to individual perceived health-related risks by adopting a cognitive perspective”, the authors can explain further on how this study extends the concept or theory, and the importance of extending this concept.

Could the authors describe further on their suggestions? For example, “When creating a new program during a pandemic, it's important to think about ways to lessen students' risk aversion” Any specific examples or measures could the authors provide?

If the authors have provided more information regarding the theoretical foundation, I expect the authors could discuss further on the theoretical contribution of this study.

The sampling technique used in this study can also be a limitation. Whether results in this study can be generalised to the Chinese population should be dealt with care.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript “Entrepreneurial Intention and Alertness in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. My coauthors and I carefully studied each of the thoughtful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Following these comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. Briefly, the major changes in the revision are as follows:

  1. We rewrote the Introduction section; we have strengthened the EA content.
  2. In the Literature Review section, we have strengthened the theoretical description.
  3. In the Discussion section, we enriched the interpretation of our results as well as theoretical and practical implications.
  4. All the changes pointed out by the reviewers have been revised. And wehave prepared two versions manuscripts: track-changes Version & cleanVersion. The track-changes Version for easily track changes, and the clean Version is usefull for locating the changes.
  5. We have undergoed the English editing. And we have carefully checked and revised all possible errors regarding grammar and style.
  6. We have checked all references.

Below are itemized replies for each of the review comments received for this manuscript.

We will be looking forward to your valuable comments regarding further improving our manuscript.

Our best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer point 1#: This article fits the purpose & scope of Sustainability.

 Reviewer point 2#: Introduction - The contribution and novelty of research results to science has not been clear. It is recommended that researchers contribute novelty research so that there are benefits from the article

 Reviewer point 3#: Introduction - Researchers should provide research gaps so that readers can know the urgency and position of the article submitted by the researcher. The introduction should be changed, as I commented.

 Reviewer point 4#: Introduction – the portion of Covid-19 discuss is too much with the theme of the business has not been balanced

Reviewer point 5#: Introduction – The portion of entrepreneurial alertness theory is still small

 Reviewer point 6#: Literary Review - Literature review is not robust enough to construct a research theoretical framework and hypotheses. The researcher should explain the theory used, its period, and its relevance to the research. The researcher did not mention anything about entrepreneurial alertness. The researcher should describe the concept of entrepreneurial alertness which is the variable in this study.

 Reviewer point 7#: Research model - Research model adopted from whose research, please include!

 Reviewer point 8#: Research Method – The data collection method is not clear! Research respondents are not clear! Ethics committee not mentioned! Instrument adoption is not clear! When developing the instrument, which validates the instrument, is there an ethics committee of an existing institution?

Reviewer point 9#: Validity and Reliability – Validity and reliability refer to whose opinion? Additional references!

 Reviewer point 10#: Discussion – Research values and contributions - researcher did not conduct a critical analysis of the findings. So that the research position is not clear.

 Reviewer point 11#: Discussion – Implications - There are no theoretical implications yet.

 Reviewer point 12#: Limitations and future scope – The limitations are clear. And the future scope is clear.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript “Entrepreneurial Intention and Alertness in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. My coauthors and I carefully studied each of the thoughtful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Following these comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. Briefly, the major changes in the revision are as follows:

  1. We rewrote the Introduction section; we have strengthened the EA content.
  2. In the Literature Review section, we have strengthened the theoretical description.
  3. In the Discussion section, we enriched the interpretation of our results as well as theoretical and practical implications.
  4. All the changes pointed out by the reviewers have been revised. And wehave prepared two versions manuscripts: track-changes Version & cleanVersion. The track-changes Version for easily track changes, and the clean Version is usefull for locating the changes.
  5. We have undergoed the English editing. And we have carefully checked and revised all possible errors regarding grammar and style.
  6. We have checked all references.

Below are itemized replies for each of the review comments received for this manuscript.

We will be looking forward to your valuable comments regarding further improving our manuscript.

Our best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am generally satisfied with this revised version. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and previous valuable suggestions!

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.