Impact of Innovation Quality on the Growth Performance of Entrepreneurial Enterprises: The Role of Knowledge Capital
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The topic Impact of Innovation Quality on Growth Performance of Entrepreneurial Enterprises Role of Knowledge Capital is interesting. The role of knowledge capital is very important to innovation quality.
The structure of the manuscript is proper. The Literature review could be improved. Paragraphs 2 and 3 should be more readable. In a general Literature review, requires analysis of the state of and not a pure listing of other results.
More important questions are as follows:
1. How and why authors selected indicators depicted in the Table 1
2. These indicators on the first and second levels do not have the same weight or importance. authors should introduce the system for assigning weights to specific indicators.
3. Calculation of Knowledge capital index measurement uses basic math. The real-life system and relations are much more complex and authors could use more advanced approaches.
4. Suggested index and measurement should be better tested with real-life examples.
Conclusion: It is a good idea that needs an improved approach.
Standard proofreading
Author Response
Point 1: The role of knowledge capital is very important to innovation quality.
The structure of the manuscript is proper. The Literature review could be improved. Paragraphs 2 and 3 should be more readable. In a general Literature review, requires analysis of the state of and not a pure listing of other results.
Response 1: According to your suggestions, this paper has modified the literature review part and summarized the status of existing literature.
Point 2: How and why authors selected indicators depicted in the Table 1?
Response 2: This paper first summarizes and studies the literatures related to knowledge capital, adjusts and supplements the previous researches, and finally determines the evaluation index system of knowledge capital from the four dimensions of human resource capital, innovation and research and development capability capital, innovation facility capital and relational capital by combining the characteristics and quantification of entrepreneurial enterprises.
Point 3: These indicators on the first and second levels do not have the same weight or importance. authors should introduce the system for assigning weights to specific indicators.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your advice. The weights of the secondary indexes are determined according to the principal component analysis method, and the primary indexes are at the same level.
Point 4: Calculation of Knowledge capital index measurement uses basic math. The real-life system and relations are much more complex and authors could use more advanced approaches. Suggested index and measurement should be better tested with real-life examples.
Response 4: As for the choice of method, the author chooses the common method at present, which is reasonable and effective. As for your suggestion, I think we can try to explore more advanced methods in the follow-up research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Despite the changes made to the text, it still needs improvement. Therefore, the comments are as follows:
1. There is no information if hypothesis 2 is confirmed or falsified (line 503: '(...) Hypothesis 2 can be verified).
2. What is the time range of the data? In the abstract and lines 362 and 436, it is 2017-2021, whereas in the last part (line 555), it is 2015-2019.
3. In the last section (Research conclusion and discussion), there is no discussion of the research results. In scientific texts, discussion involves comparing the article's findings to those of other authors.
4. The text needs proofreading.
Many paragraphs are written in a way difficult to understand.
Author Response
Point 1: There is no information if hypothesis 2 is confirmed or falsified (line 503: '(...) Hypothesis 2 can be verified).
Response 1: As for the question you raised, I think I may not quite understand. Please allow me to explain. Hypothesis 2 proposes that there is a significant positive relationship between the innovation quality of start-ups and knowledge capital. The empirical test results of Model 2, with knowledge capital as the explained variable and technology innovation as the explanatory variable, show that the regression coefficient reaches a significant level. Therefore, the paper believes that hypothesis 2 has passed the verification.
Point 2: What is the time range of the data? In the abstract and lines 362 and 436, it is 2017-2021, whereas in the last part (line 555), it is 2015-2019.
Response 2: I am very sorry for the low-level error. The time range of data is from 2017 to 2021, which has been modified.
Point 3: In the last section (Research conclusion and discussion), there is no discussion of the research results. In scientific texts, discussion involves comparing the article's findings to those of other authors.
Response 3: Based on your suggestions, the results of the study are compared and discussed with the findings of other authors.
Point 4: The text needs proofreading.
Response 4: The article has been proofread again.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The paper has improved a lot since the last version.
In the introduction, the first few sentences are not grounded in the literature. I recommend reading and quoting:
- Orchestrating entrepreneurial ecosystems in circular economy: the new paradigm of sustainable competitiveness
- Entrepreneurship and the Resource-Based View: What is the linkage? A Bibliometric Approach
In the literature review, I suggest you cite some more studies from 2022, as there are few, and also cite studies from 2023 that have none.
Develop the resource-based view more (see the recommended study for the introduction).
Review subsection numbering.
The discussion of results has to be separated from the conclusion. Create a new section for a discussion of results before the conclusion.
In discussing the results, the authors must confront their study's results critically and compare them with other studies.
They should also clearly state which studies have different and equal results in the discussion.
Some of the information, in conclusion, must move into the new results discussion section.
The conclusion should have the following subpoints:
6.1. Main results
6.2. Theoretical implications
6.3. Practical implications (businesses, universities, government/policies, society – whenever applicable)
6.4. Limitations and future lines of investigation
English needs to be proofread, preferably by a native speaker.
In the review, I ask the authors to write a rebuttal letter and include the answers to all recommendations. Also, mark the revisions made in a different colour.
English needs to be proofread, preferably by a native speaker.
Author Response
Point 1: In the introduction, the first few sentences are not grounded in the literature. I recommend reading and quoting:
- Orchestrating entrepreneurial ecosystems in circular economy: the new paradigm of sustainable competitiveness
Response 1: The article reads and quotes the two literatures you mentioned according to your suggestions.
Point 2: In the literature review, I suggest you cite some more studies from 2022, as there are few, and also cite studies from 2023 that have none.
Response 2: According to your suggestion, references for 2022 and 2023 are added to the literature.
Point 3: Develop the resource-based view more (see the recommended study for the introduction).Review subsection numbering.
Response 3:Thank you for your suggestions. We have read the two articles you recommended, but found the other two articles more appropriate. The article adds a literature citation in the introduction,Section numbering has been checked.
Point 4: The discussion of results has to be separated from the conclusion. Create a new section for a discussion of results before the conclusion.
In discussing the results, the authors must confront their study's results critically and compare them with other studies.
They should also clearly state which studies have different and equal results in the discussion.
Some of the information, in conclusion, must move into the new results discussion section.
Response 4: According to your suggestions, the results part of the paper has been modified to compare the research results of the paper with the existing research findings.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Although the text has been improved, there are still a lot of typographical errors. Therefore, authors should reread it carefully, paying attention to uppercase and lowercase letters, spacing, punctuation etc.
In row 516 still is the time range 2015-2019.
Author Response
Point 1: Although the text has been improved, there are still a lot of typographical errors. Therefore, authors should reread it carefully, paying attention to uppercase and lowercase letters, spacing, punctuation etc.
Response 1: We re-read the article carefully, and checked and modified the composition.
Point 2: In row 516 still is the time range 2015-2019.
Response 2: I'm very sorry. We have corrected the time frame.
My manuscript submitted to MDPI for English editing has been edited.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The paper has improved a lot. In my opinion it can be accepted for publication.
The English I think still needs to be revised.
Author Response
Point 1: The English I think still needs to be revised.
Response 1: According to your suggestions, we have optimized the English expression of the article.
My manuscript submitted to MDPI for English editing has been edited.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title is too long and unappealing.
The abstract must be revised. Essential information is missing. For example, the objective is not clearly understood. How original is the paper? The Abstract must have the following logic: Purpose; Design/methodology/approach; Findings; Practical implications; originality/value
Most of the ideas in the introduction are not supported by the literature, so they have little validity.
I recommend revising the introduction as follows:
1- Framing the reader
2- Issues of the topic under analysis
3- Show the GAP of the literature based on the literature
4- Purpose of the study
5- Originality of the study
6- Main results and contributions (to captivate the reader)
One or two research questions should be formulated in the introduction and answered in conclusion. Research questions are already formulated, but adequate answers to research questions are not given in the conclusion.
A good Introduction section should answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study it)? What are the research questions? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Why is to propose this particular method? Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I suggest the author enhance your theoretical discussion and arrive at your debate or argument. At the moment, research questions are unclear.
I recommend including a theory in the introduction so that it is the “lens/perspective” through which the study will be analyzed. They refer to the theory of resource-based view (RBV) but do not have a point in the literature review.
They must include the theory in point 2.1.
The literature review should be revised. Hypotheses should be formulated when addressing the topics in the section, and not open a section for hypotheses.
Other subsections can be created if necessary. Structure to follow:
2. Literature review
2.1. Theory …
2.2. (review of the general literature on the subject)
2.3. Formulation of hypotheses
2.3.1. (each “variable” create a subsection)
The literature review still needs to be updated, with few studies published recently. The most recent is from 2021.
The structure of the paper is not good and makes it difficult to read and understand.
I recommend rearranging the paper:
1. Introduction
2. Literature review
3. Methodology
4. Results
5. Discussion of results
6. Conclusion
Methodology
The methodology needs to be justified, clear and detailed. It is not clear what was done.
When did you collect the data?
I recommend starting the methodology section by reminding the reader of the purpose of the study.
They must justify the methodology used. Indicate advantages and substantiate with literature.
Why did they use this methodology and not another?
In the methodology, they should make a table with the variables and the authors who have already explored these variables.
The citation of the authors must be verified. Some are misquoted. See, for example, pg. 8.
Before applying the statistical method, we must explain and substantiate it with the authors. It is not enough to apply the method in a scientific article.
We turned out to be very extensive and little interpreted.
A section should be created before the conclusion with a discussion of the results.
The conclusion also needs to be revised. I recommend improving the conclusion as follows (order of ideas):
1. Remember the purpose of the study
2. Main findings
3. Theoretical implications (does not have – a link with theory from point 2.1)
4. Practical implications
5. Social implications (if applicable)
6. Originality of the study
7. Limitations of the study
8. Future lines of research
For these 8 points, subsections can be created as follows:
6.1. Main results
6.2. Theoretical implications
6.3. Practical implications (businesses, universities, government/policies, society – whenever applicable)
6.4. Limitations and future lines of investigation
What does this study add to science?
The theoretical and practical implications are fundamental and need to be reinforced.
English needs to be proofread, preferably by a native speaker.
In the review, I ask the authors to write a rebuttal letter and include the answers to all recommendations. Also, mark the revisions made in a different color.
Reviewer 2 Report
The research problem is current and essential from both a theoretical and practical point of view, and the authors proposed an interesting analysis method. However, the methodological errors should be eliminated before publishing the text:
1. the aim of the research is not explicitly formulated;
2. hypotheses do not fill the gap in the existing knowledge but are formulated based on the research results of other authors;
3. there is no discussion of research results (i.e., their confrontation with the results obtained by other researchers),
4. the last section consists mainly of generalities, some of which (e.g., the first conclusion -> lines 450-463) do not result from the conducted research. Moreover, in two cases, there is no information if the hypothesis was confirmed or falsified (lines 397-398: ‘(...) Hypothesis 2 can be verified.’ and line 412 ‘Hypothesis 3 got verified in both cases.’).
The authors explain the main idea of the article (lines 73-77: 'This paper tries to take an empirical test on the influencing relationships of the innovation quality, the knowledge capital and the growth performance through sample data, providing theoretical enlightenment for the stable growth of entrepreneurial enterprises') use the term 'innovation quality.' Then, in lines 286-288, the term 'innovative quality of enterprises' appears. While in the description of the theoretical model (Fig. 1), there is 'innovate quality.' So what was used as the explanatory variable? Innovation quality, innovate quality, or innovative quality of enterprises? It should be unambiguously specified.
Line 219 contains information, 'The specific calculation methods are shown in Table 1 below.' meanwhile, there are no methods in the table, only indicators used in further calculations.
Table 1 is illegible.
In addition, the text needs to be redrafted because it is written in a language difficult to understand. It would be advisable to simplification of the style as some sentences are too long (e.g., lines 403-408: 'The growing ability of the enterprise plays a positive effect on the stable growth of the enterprise; on the contrary, the asset-liability ratio will inversely limit the positive trend of the growth and development; in addition, the results show that age has a negative effect on the growth performance of the enterprise, which may be faced with the growing and maturing period when the enterprise will inevitably encounter some development bottlenecks and traps.'). Imprecise wording should also be eliminated, e.g., line 452: '(…) the growth and development of enterprises will be more optimistic (…)'.
