Toward a Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Qatar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the paper is of good quality, has original elements and relevance not only in the academic field.
Paragraph 5 could be improved, as well as the conclusions.
In the previous pages, especially in the analysis of the interviews, the role of public policies and policy-making clearly emerges, as well as the weight - in terms of constraints or opportunities - of non-economic factors, in particular of a social and anthropological nature. Unfortunately, there is no political and / or public administration actors among the key informants. The interview with these subjects could have offered a more complete picture of the situation from the point of view not only of the economic actors (apart from the academics and researchers interviewed).
Precisely because of the links between entrepreneurial dynamics, public policy-making and extra-economic factors such as the weight of social relations in work choices and various factors of a cultural and anthropological nature, paragraph 5 should be more attentive to these relations, that is, in in other words, to the fact that the market is socially and politically constructed (Karl Polanyi).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to make the revision to my manuscript. To address each of your comments and concerns, I have prepared a formal answer below to your points. Additionally, to facilitate the review process, I highlight in the new version of the manuscript all the changes made and/or new sections and discussions.
I hope that this version satisfies the quality standards of the journal.
All the best,
The author.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, the paper is of good quality, has original elements and relevance not only in the academic field.
Thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions, the pleasure was all mine.
Paragraph 5 could be improved, as well as the conclusions.
I appreciate the suggestion. Paragraph 5 and, in general, the section was checked and expanded in some parts and updated with some references from 2022. The conclusion section was considerably augmented following also reviewer 2 suggestions on this point.
In the previous pages, especially in the analysis of the interviews, the role of public policies and policy-making clearly emerges, as well as the weight - in terms of constraints or opportunities - of non-economic factors, in particular of a social and anthropological nature. Unfortunately, there is no political and / or public administration actors among the key informants. The interview with these subjects could have offered a more complete picture of the situation from the point of view not only of the economic actors (apart from the academics and researchers interviewed).
Thank you for your comment. The research was designed to analyze the micro-level perceptions, policymakers barely have hands on the field and their opinions can be biased with the reality of the ecosystem we were trying to capture. Nevertheless, the pool of key informants is well balanced with incubation managers, academics, researchers, consultants, investors, etc. At the same time the founders deal with policies and regulations everyday. In the argumentation is mentioned the decisive government intervention so, they might have a different opinion than what is the reality for entrepreneurs. However, we address this point you made in the final sections discussing the findings and for future research venues.
Precisely because of the links between entrepreneurial dynamics, public policy-making and extra-economic factors such as the weight of social relations in work choices and various factors of a cultural and anthropological nature, paragraph 5 should be more attentive to these relations, that is, in in other words, to the fact that the market is socially and politically constructed (Karl Polanyi).
Thank you very much for you insightful observation. I could not agree more, and to make clear this suggestion, the paragraph mentioned was reviewed, and the whole manuscript rechecked to capture in the findings, discussion and conclusion this type of links. I hope the new version will satisfy your concerns.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very informative article that discusses the entrepreneurial ecosystems in Qatar. The research is structured and well-written. For a better version of this manuscript, I would like to make several comments.
Abstract
It would be better for your abstract to delete the sentence beginning with "Many studies have mistreated the..." It would be appreciated if it was moved to the introduction section and references referring to these "many studies" be provided.
Introduction
Some data need to have supportive references. The example is given here as an example of Middle Eastern counter-visions.
The introduction also needs to be updated with supportive references. Few studies are referred here to the year 2021 and none to 2022.
In other places of this manuscript, this research mentions that entrepreneurial ecosystems have emerged over the last 15 years, but this research describes them as emerging systems.
The added value is not mentioned in the introduction but only in the conclusion. It should be noted both in the introduction and in the conclusion.
Literature Review
Supporting references should be included in the literature review, especially when describing Qatar's context.
Figure 1 is out of the research context as it is produced from the research methods rather than the discretion of the case of Qatar's economic aspects.
Methodology
It is well written. I have a minor issue that should be added. The interview questions should be added. More description is needed of the characteristics of the samples. It is mentioned here that a few founders were selected for interviews. How do these start-up founders describe themselves and their activities? While their identity should remain anonymous, this study should tell more about the types of work they have produced and why they were selected for the interview.
The methodology describes the 'document analysis', what types of document analysis are, and what software was used, if any.
The conclusion mentioned that sample size was chosen as a snowballing technique. This issue was not mentioned in the methodology section.
Results
The results of the interview are well explained.
The discussion
Linking your results to recent studies is missing.
Discussing the research argument in this section is also missing.
Conclusion
The summary of the main finding is missing. The focus here seems to be on the research outlook and directions for future research.
The snowballing technique was not mentioned in the methodology section. I would recommend describing the snowballing methods in the methodology section or removing them from the conclusion.
As this study has qualitative methods, the Declaration section is missing. It is essential to provide more description of the Institutional Review Board in Qatar and any conflict of interest.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to make the revision of my manuscript. I have prepared a formal answer below to your points to address each comment and concern. Additionally, to facilitate the review process, I highlight in the new version of the manuscript all the changes that I made following these recommendations.
I hope that this version satisfies the quality standards of the journal.
All the best,
The author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very informative article that discusses the entrepreneurial ecosystems in Qatar. The research is structured and well-written. For a better version of this manuscript, I would like to make several comments.
Thank you very much for your insightful and valuable comments. My gratitude is with you.
Abstract
It would be better for your abstract to delete the sentence beginning with "Many studies have mistreated the..." It would be appreciated if it was moved to the introduction section and references referring to these "many studies" be provided.
This sentence was deleted from the abstract and clarified on page 2, at the end of the second paragraph, as "Volkmann et al. (2021) argued that many researchers had mistreated the opportunity offered by ecosystems for promoting sustainable development."
Introduction
Some data need to have supportive references. The example is given here as an example of Middle Eastern counter-visions.
The introduction also needs to be updated with supportive references. Few studies are referred here to the year 2021 and none to 2022.
Thank you for this observation. New references were introduced to address these helpful comments. Specifically, the literature is lacking in the field of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial ecosystems in MENA and GCC. That's why it is part of the contributions of this study. I am using the most recent literature from top-tier journals.
In other places of this manuscript, this research mentions that entrepreneurial ecosystems have emerged over the last 15 years, but this research describes them as emerging systems.
The second paragraph of the introduction was restructured and expanded with new references to clarify this point. In summary, is emerging because there isn't clarity and consensus yet in the field.
The added value is not mentioned in the introduction but only in the conclusion. It should be noted both in the introduction and in the conclusion.
Thank you for this comment. The introduction, as well as the conclusion, were reviewed and expanded.
Literature Review
Supporting references should be included in the literature review, especially when describing Qatar's context.
Figure 1 is out of the research context as it is produced from the research methods rather than the discretion of the case of Qatar's economic aspects.
I appreciate your observation. Some references were added to this section. However, Figure 1, helps contextualize Qatar's economic transformation and the relevance of understanding how to reach sustainable economic development as the core of this study. Not sure why it is out of context from your perspective. It was built with public data.
Methodology
It is well written. I have a minor issue that should be added. The interview questions should be added. More description is needed of the characteristics of the samples. It is mentioned here that a few founders were selected for interviews. How do these start-up founders describe themselves and their activities? While their identity should remain anonymous, this study should tell more about the types of work they have produced and why they were selected for the interview.
I appreciate this observation. A part of this section was added and rewritten to clarify this point and the below.
The methodology describes the 'document analysis', what types of document analysis are, and what software was used, if any.
Thanks for the comment; it was a manual process; it is clarified now in the manuscript how it was sorted and reviewed.
The conclusion mentioned that sample size was chosen as a snowballing technique. This issue was not mentioned in the methodology section.
Apologies, this is actually a mistake. It was a snowball effect when making the initial list of about 120 potential respondents, but the final interviews were selected based on three criteria described in the methodology. Now is more evident in the corresponding section and removed from the conclusion.
Results
The results of the interview are well explained.
The discussion
Linking your results to recent studies is missing.
Discussing the research argument in this section is also missing.
Thank you for this suggestion. Significant changes have been made to this section to ensure retaking the main arguments from the research design and review and linking them to the new findings.
Conclusion
The summary of the main finding is missing. The focus here seems to be on the research outlook and directions for future research.
I took special consideration on this comment since also the other reviewer made the same suggestion. This section was expanded. Thank you for helping me improve the manuscript.
The snowballing technique was not mentioned in the methodology section. I would recommend describing the snowballing methods in the methodology section or removing them from the conclusion.
Thank you for the observation. You are right, it was removed and explained in more detail the sampling selection criteria in the methodology section.
As this study has qualitative methods, the Declaration section is missing. It is essential to provide more description of the Institutional Review Board in Qatar and any conflict of interest.
I appreciate the comment. I believe this declaration doesn't appear in the manuscript you reviewed, but I have reported in the submission to the journal the conflict of interest statement and data availability statement to the editors.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering all my previous comments and providing proper responses.
