Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is certainly interesting and worth examination, however more in-depth literature review is recommended.

More methodological details would improve the quality of the paper. It is not clear who made a survey, in what area etc. What is a reserach area?

In part called “discussion” there is almost lack of discussion. It looks like second part of the results. The authors shouldn’t use too many quotes.

Poor quality of figures (use non-serif fonts).

The paper clearly needs proofreading (spealing mistakes, Polish way of writing e.g., XXI century, bd - for lack of data and many others).

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments that I have read carefully. Thanks to them, I hope that they significantly enriched the substantive and empirical part.

according to tips:

1. the research methodology has been refined, both in the abstract and in the part of the methodical work: Statistical data from Central Statistical Office from years 2010-2020 concerning age, place of residence and level of education was a selection base while creating the layers. The methodological concept of the study was theoretical and empirical. In the empirical part, the research was conducted in the territory of the Polish state, using proprietary indicators of sustainable development, as well as
   a questionnaire
2. has been supplemented with additional, up-to-date literature: 15 concise items and scientific articles from 2020-2022.
3. the view of graphics and tables has been improved
4. In the discussion part, conclusions were added and, as suggested, some citations were removed.
5. the article has undergone a linguistic correction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author(s)

My personal opinion is that after reading the paper, the manuscript is of potential interest to the readership of this journal, but there are significant issues that must be addressed:

In general:

1. Background – Expand a little more to highlight the research problem to highlight the study's need.

2. Methodology - expand a little more. Add analysis methods.

3. Contribution: It would be a good paper if it did look at the research impact on the community.

4. Findings: Should align with the study goal. 

5. Recommendations: Expand a little more.

6. Recommendation for Researchers

Introduction

A concise introduction to enable the reader's understanding of the research problem.

• The introduction should clearly illustrate (1) what we know (the key theoretical perspectives and empirical findings) and what do we not know (major, unaddressed puzzle, controversy, or paradox does the study addresses, or why it needs to be addressed and why this matters). And, (2) what will we learn from the study and how does the study fundamentally change, challenge, or advance scholars’ understanding. Much sharper problematization is required so that the introduction draws the reader into the paper. The introduction therefore needs to do a better job in setting the stage for the articulation of the theoretical contributions of the study. At the end of the introduction, we should have a clear idea of what the paper is about (i.e. its motivation, the gap in understanding that the paper is trying to address and summary of theoretical contributions).

• Give readers a one-line preview of the other sections of the paper.

Literature review

Used sub-headings to organize topics. Some critical studies are not included. The paper should relate coherently and convincingly with issues of real-world significance. This is a crucial phase contributing to research design. The theoretical framework emerging from the literature review could research questions and points of emphasis.

Suggestions

• Include a few introductory lines to indicate what the review will cover, outlining the purpose and scope.

• Consider summarising the text based on the study purpose.

• Add more information to enable readers' understanding of the authors' view.

• You are encouraged to write concisely. The text can be reduced significantly.

Methodology

This is one of the most critical parts of the paper that reviewers found lacking detail.

The methods should be adequately described to show how the research was conducted to improve clarity and transparency.

Instruments

The section must devote details to the description of the instrument.

Expand the development process of the instrument.

 Data analysis 

The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation in the paper is inadequate.

Findings and discussion

Needs clear and comprehensive explanations to assist readers' understanding.

Challenges

How were these reported in the discussion?

Conclusion

The conclusion falls short of providing sufficient information that would allow a reader to understand the contribution of this research.  What was found? I would expect the conclusion to refer back to the research questions.

Limitations – There is no mention of the limitations of this study.

 

Overall, the paper requires more information and focus. The areas requiring attention are highlighted in the individual sections. 

In summary, the paper needs

• a re-write of the abstract to give a good summary of the paper and mention the key concepts.

• Expanding the introduction by clearly stating the research problem to suitably inform the reader.

• A synthesised and structured critique of the literature.

• clarifying the research procedures with an adequate explanation of the methods.

• Improving the survey instrument – construction of the questionnaire and the validity tests.

• Expanding the discussion to allow writing a well-developed conclusion summarising the entire paper. The outcomes should be discussed in relation to the existing research.

• emphasizing the significance of the research - a clear showing of how the findings contribute to new knowledge.

• Using results to support the claims in conclusion adequately, and how the results of the research can be used for future research

 

- Using the following references could be beneficial as these add more evidence to the literature review section:

Tajpour, M., Salamzadeh, A., Salamzadeh, Y., & Braga, V. (2021). Investigating social capital, trust and commitment in family business: case of media firms. Journal of Family Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-02-2021-0013

 

 

Hosseini,E; Tajpour,M; Salamzadeh,A; Demiryurek,K & Kawamorita,H( 2021), Resilience and Knowledge-Based Firms’ Performance: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Thinking. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Resilience, 4(2), 7-29.

 

Best of luck with the further development of the paper.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments that I have read carefully. Thanks to them, I hope that they significantly enriched the substantive and empirical part.

according to tips:

1. the abstract has been modified according to the reviewer's instructions.
2. the research methodology has been refined, both in the abstract and in the part of the methodical work: Statistical data from Central Statistical Office from years 2010-2020 concerning age, place of residence and level of education was a selection base while creating the layers. The methodological concept of the study was theoretical and empirical. In the empirical part, the research was conducted in the territory of the Polish state, using proprietary indicators of sustainable development, as well as
   a questionnaire,
3. has been supplemented with the impact of research on the development of science and practice,
4. has been supplemented with additional, up-to-date literature: 15 concise items and scientific articles from 2020-2022.
5. the research results have been refined and the conclusions in the discussion and summary reflect the research results,
6. the view of graphics and tables has been improved
7. The article has undergone a linguistic correction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate that the authors deal with this topic, which is very interesting in research and it is important to deal with it.

I recommend some additions and adjustments.

1) I encourage authors to edit the abstract. In my opinion it should better capture the content and results of the research.

2) I also recommend expanding the references by about 10 relevant current references.

3) Furthermore, it would be appropriate to discuss the results and compare them more in the international context.

4) Add research limits please.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments that I have read carefully. Thanks to them, I hope that they significantly enriched the substantive and empirical part.

according to tips:

1. the research methodology has been refined, both in the abstract and in the part of the methodical work: Statistical data from Central Statistical Office from years 2010-2020 concerning age, place of residence and level of education was a selection base while creating the layers. The methodological concept of the study was theoretical and empirical. In the empirical part, the research was conducted in the territory of the Polish state, using proprietary indicators of sustainable development, as well as
   a questionnaire
2. has been supplemented with additional, up-to-date literature: 15 concise items and scientific articles from 2020-2022.
3. the view of graphics and tables has been improved
4. In the discussion part, conclusions were added and, as suggested, some citations were removed.
5. the article has undergone a linguistic correction.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper would benefit from a better structuring of the content in the idea to address the readers to understand the process behind the research, the built-up of the for the methodological process and the technical subjectivity of the findings and results. 

Overall, the paper won't deliver added value for the field, it needs clarity in the context it was written because the information and the research are valuable not only for academia, but also for the industries that are targeted.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments that I have read carefully. Thanks to them, I hope that they significantly enriched the substantive and empirical part.

according to tips:

1. the research methodology has been refined, both in the abstract and in the part of the methodical work: Statistical data from Central Statistical Office from years 2010-2020 concerning age, place of residence and level of education was a selection base while creating the layers. The methodological concept of the study was theoretical and empirical. In the empirical part, the research was conducted in the territory of the Polish state, using proprietary indicators of sustainable development, as well as
   a questionnaire
2. has been supplemented with additional, up-to-date literature: 15 concise items and scientific articles from 2020-2022.
3. the view of graphics and tables has been improved
4. In the discussion part, conclusions were added and, as suggested, some citations were removed.
5. the article has undergone a linguistic correction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

good

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author(s)

Hope you are doing well. According to the review of this article, the corrections have been made.

Good luck

Reviewer 4 Report

After the major review, I don't have any further recommendations.