Bioeconomic Entrepreneurship and Key Factors of Development: Lessons from Argentina

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I read your article with great interest because it analyzes a current topic on Bioeconomic entrepreneurship and key factors of development: Lessons from Argentina.

The article has a good structure. However, literature review requires some improvements in the fluency and consistency of the theory being analyzed. It is necessary to divide the text into subchapters according to the title of the article but also to the purpose of qualitative research. The theory part ends abruptly. The reader is left in suspense and without understanding the essence of the information. Here, I recommend reviewing the approach of literature analysis with an emphasis on the clear presentation of theoretical concepts.

In the research methodology part we could not identify if the analyzed sample is representative. I recommend that you better explain the sample included in the analysis. Also here, I recommend including quotes and evidence regarding the size of the analyzed sample. It is also necessary to include a table with the structure of the analyzed sample.

The analysis of the results is treated very generally, with brief explanations. I did not understand why the authors to the point 4.1. presented only some of the factors identified in the analysis. I recommend that you justify the choice made or complete the article with the missing results.

Also, I recommend adding tables in the article or in the appendices with the items included in the interview (qualitative research tool).

I recommend that in the discussion section you highlight the answer obtained to the research questions formulated in the introductory section.

Moreover, it is necessary to improve the bibliography with recent research. The bibliography is not formatted according to the recommendations in the authors' guide.

You can also see the following articles as a source of inspiration:

Ștefănică, M .; Sandu, C.B .; Butnaru, G.I .; Haller, A.-P. The Nexus between Tourism Activities and Environmental Degradation: Romanian Tourists ’Opinions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169210

Ştefănică, M., Vodă, A.I., Butnaru, R.C., Butnaru, G.I. and Chiriţa, M.G., 2020. Ecological Purchases Made by Managers in Hotel Industry. An Approach of the Main Determining Factors. Economic Amphitheater, 22 (53), pp. 57-70. doi 10.24818 / EA / 2019/53/57

That's all! Good luck! 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I want to thank the author for submitting the paper “Bioeconomic entrepreneurship and key factors of development: Lessons from Argentina". Although I find the research idea and the topic interesting and relevant, I have some concerns that should be addressed. I will outline these concerns along the paper.

1. First, nonetheless it might be elaborated elsewhere, it would be really useful to add the reason to conduct this study in the introduction section itself. Please make sure your introduction ends by specifically stating the objectives of the paper. In the opinion of the reviewer the purpose of the research has been neither clarified, nor correlated with the content of the work. Existing gap(s) and research questions are not clearly specified in the introduction
2. Introduction itself – after reading an introduction reader does not know what Bioeconomic entrepreneurship refers to. I think you should make sure to clear that.  At this point I am not convinced enough. 
3. What is the research problem in this paper? What research problem do you try to solve? And how? What kind of research strategy do you employ and what is reasoning behind it? You should explain these in your paper. I believe that the authors have concepts that they wish to explore, but they need to be clearer so that the reader follows what they are trying to accomplish.
4. Fourth, the literature used in the manuscript is good both as to the number of references and their quality (WoS and/or Scopus journals). But I have restrictions to the presentation of the literature review. I would recommend to enrich the literature review presented in the subparts. I claim that it would allow to make this part (and the paper itself) more coherent as a whole. To sum up, I recommend to provide more comprehensive insight into theoretical background, because the recent framework is too general and simplified. What kind of methodology have you used to review this literature? Perhaps, you could be more specific here. Have you gathered the information and analyse it in a systematic way (e.g. SLR)? As insufficient literature review is a weakness of this paper, the author should therefore deepen the theoretical part of their considerations on the basis of subject literature. Generally, more theoretical insights and empirical evidence is needed for justification of your framework.
5. There are serious flaws in terms of conceptual design of the paper - you cant’s rush into empirical part of your research without proper theory building. It makes your paper hard to follow. Generally, more theoretical insights and empirical evidence is needed for justification of your framework.
6. Sixth, it is not clear from the description how people for these 23 interviews were selected.
7. Adding appendixes from your qualitative research would be valuable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with current and important from the point of view of science and practice issues. The methodology and data section need improvement. In the current form, it is not very clear. Moreover, further research directions and limitations of the study should be completed. The research part, as well as the in-depth discussion and recommendations, deserve appreciation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks so much for the improved version of the article!

The authors implemented all the recommendations and improved the article.

Author Response

Dear Editors
Based on your latest comments we have made the following changes and improvements:
New bibliographical references on bioeconomics, especially from the latest sustainability publications, have been added.
New ideas and methodological proposals were added based on the latest publications, allowing us to maintain greater coherence and harmony with the latest work of the journal.
A sentence on the role of societal transitions towards bioeconomy was added.
A change was made to the title of section 6.
Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.docx