Generating Entrepreneurial Ideas for Business Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this is a good and interesting article.

Regarding the presentation of the research results, I have no comments.

 

The article contains a very comprehensive analysis, but some things need to be corrected:

1/ the introduction lacks research hypotheses (the authors only state the purpose of the study);

2/ The structure of the article is not correct (why was section 1.1. singled out?);

3/ I suggest separating section 2 "Entrepreneurship - a literature review, and in it presenting the following issues: the concept of entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurial attitude, generating entrepreneurial ideas.

The literature is dominated by analyses concerning the presentation of a number of different characteristics of an entrepreneur in order to define a set of characteristics of persons undertaking business activity. Consideration is also given to whether entrepreneurship can be taught or whether it has a genetic basis. Many researchers are investigating the main motives of people who decide to start a business.

However, a second stream of research is beginning to emerge that focuses on the behaviours and actions that accompany the process of preparing to set up a business. The term nascent entrepreneurship is fairly new to entrepreneurship theory. It first appeared in the world literature in the early 1990s and only became widespread at the beginning of the current century . It was introduced by Paul D. Reynolds;

4/ Authors use the phrase e.g. "According to" in the article and give only the number of the cited literature item. They should give the name of the author(s) (e.g. line 120). Please correct throughout the text;

5/ Please add more recent literature;

6/ Adding section 2 will increase the number of literature items cited. This will improve the quality of the article.   

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

You should check your references in text and adjust them according to instructions (lines 75 and 78).

In general, it was very difficult to understand this paper. You are going from one topic to another, you are mentioning the entrepreneurial ideas as a starting point of a new business and then you go on about already existing business. You need to make a clear distinction between those two situations.

Author Response

Point 1: Incorrect citation

Response1: Done rephrase

• Hill and Birkinshaw [13]
• Cosenz and Noto [14]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript addresses an important topic related to entrepreneurship education. The authors tried to determine the crucial elements in the process of forming entrepreneurial ideas based on a study using 12 entrepreneurial lecturers.

Regarding the methods used MDT and NGT, I would recomment the authors a more detailed argument as to why they chose them.

For example, NGT has obvious advantages such as:

+ voting which is anonymous,

+ equal participation etc.

But there are also disadvantages of NGT related to:

-the process that may seem too mechanical,

-opinions that may not converge in the vote,

-possibility of cross-fertilization of ideas to be restricted, etc.

I would also recommend to the authors to extend a little bit their ideas, especially in the results part, with further interpretations based on tables 2 and 3, which would prove the high degree of complexity of the experiment led by the authors.

I would also like to see a more extensive section on authors’ plans to improve the experiment and their plans for further research, more than a phrase (taken from other bibliographic sources) in the Conclusions.

At a check with anti-plagiarism software (see the attached PDF file), the work has a degree of similarity of 28%, which is not very low. There are whole sentences, paragraphs that unfortunately seem to be taken from other bibliographic sources without being quoted properly and several without the bibliographic source immediately specified, even in the abstract and in the Conclusions sections.

I would kindly recommend to the authors to rephrase in their own words those paragraphs that appear colored in the similarity file, such as: lines 7-15, 69-82, the whole section 2.Materials and Methods, other lines on pages 6, 7, the Conclusions. I assume that the manuscript being the work and experiment of the authors, they can write at least the Abstract and Conclusions in most their entirety using their own words.

I would also recommend to the authors a final verification of the English language, perhaps by a native speaker, for example "In this sence" (perhaps sense) row 98.

Otherwise, the experiment behind the manuscript seems well worked, there are these few aspects that I recommend to be improved in order to be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point 1: The manuscript addresses an important topic related to entrepreneurship education. The authors tried to determine the crucial elements in the process of forming entrepreneurial ideas based on a study using 12 entrepreneurial lecturers. Regarding the methods used MDT and NGT, I would recommend the authors a more detailed argument as to why they chose them.

Response 1:

-The Modified Delphi Technique (MDT) was applied in this study by considering various factors namely, i) able to reduce the number of rounds and shorten the data collection period by simply referring to the literature review, ii) controlled feedback, iii) expert views are free from biased influences where they are not influenced by more dominant and experienced individuals, iv) consensus and decision through knowledgeable experts, v) errors that occur are limited due to using experts and vi) structured.

- The NGT approach is a structured procedure for obtaining information through face -to -face group discussions to make decisions, determine priorities and solve a problem to obtain consensus on an issue studied (Harvey & Holmes 2012; McMillan, King & Tully 2016). In addition, the advantage of the NGT approach is the ability to generate both positive and negative views, contribute more creative comments and ideas compared to the survey method, save time, contribute honest opinions among expert panels and minimize the domination of the discussion by other members. 

Point 2: I would also recommend to the authors to extend a little bit their ideas, especially in the results part, with further interpretations based on tables 2 and 3, which would prove the high degree of complexity of the experiment led by the authors.

Response 2: Done explained for result Table 2 and Table 3.

Point 3: I would kindly recommend to the authors to rephrase in their own words those paragraphs that appear colored in the similarity file, such as: lines 7-15, 69-82, the whole section 2. Materials and Methods, other lines on pages 6, 7, the Conclusions. I assume that the manuscript being the work and experiment of the authors, they can write at least the Abstract and Conclusions in most their entirety using their own words.

Response 3: Done rephrase for materials and method, abstract.  

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Unfortunately the authors did not correct the text as requested by the reviewer.

This needs to be corrected:

1/ The structure of the article is not correct. I propose to add to section 2 section 2.1 The concept of entrepreneurship

Adding section 2.1 will increase the number of literature cited. This will improve the quality of the article.

2/ Authors use the phrase e.g. "According to" in the article and give only the number of the literature item cited. They should give the name of the author(s). I only give examples. Needs to be corrected throughout the text.

 

[18] explained that in producing an innovative idea, it requires a process in which the ideas need to be compiled, managed and evaluated before decisions are taken and reforms, then implemented in the business organization.

 

Besides, [21] explained that with identified the sensitivity towards a social or environmental problem can foster idea generation.

 

This view is also supported by [17] which stated that not all entrepreneurs who want to start a business have a unique idea.

 

Therefore, [23] argued that there are four ways entrepreneurs can be innovative and  creative in digesting entrepreneurial ideas namely (i) developing entrepreneurial ideas as a continuation of an existing product; (ii) create a better service; (iii) marketing products  at cheaper prices; and (iv) add value to an existing product or service.

 

This is confirmed by [3], which have stated that successful entrepreneurs are not only able to understand new ideas but are able to understand ideas that have been generated by others.

In  addition, [16] also stated that great ideas can be seen through new inventions in the forms of goods or services or the modification of the existing goods or services to a better and  attractive product to be marketed.

Furthermore, [24] also supported that market research should be conducted to obtain ideas and information related to the latest trends in the market, buying habits,  technology, services and products that are targeted in the market. This argument is  reinforced by [25], which explained that by obtaining information related to purchasing  power, supplier power, competition in the market , threats from newcomers and threats from new products or services can give a starting ideas in organizing business strategy. Similarly, [12] stated these ideas can be generated through the classification and consolidation of ideas from the acquired knowledge and various sources.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your comments.

Point 1: The structure of the article is not correct. I propose to add to section 2 section 2.1 The concept of entrepreneurship

Response 1: I add the new subsection following your suggestion

Point 2: Authors use the phrase e.g. "According to" in the article and give only the number of the literature item cited. They should give the name of the author(s). Needs to be corrected throughout the text.

Response 2: Done rephrase.

Reviewer 3 Report

The degree of similarity decreased to 21% (see attached PDF file).

The authors mostly fulfilled the suggestions I made  in order to improve the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your feedback and comments.