Do Entrepreneurial Financial Support and Entrepreneurial Culture Stimulate New Venture Performance through Organizational Creativity and Firm Innovation? Empirical Findings from Ho Chi Minh City Region, Vietnam

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude on your valuable comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your recommendations. We have also changed the font of the modified information in our paper to red to make it easier for the reviewer to follow our changes. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Article interesting. Expanded in terms of theory. Properly selected research methods. Very well developed statistical data. Clear structure of the work. Very extensive bibliography.

Response 1: We would like to express our gratitude on your positive comments. We have made various improvements in our manuscript according to the comments of all of the reviewers. We would like to express our gratitude to your time and the valuable comments, now we can see that our article is completely different, much better thanks to your suggestions and inspirations.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

Response 1:  Thanks for your response to comment on the quality of our manuscript’s English language. We have carefully re-read our manuscript and asked our two colleagues who are fluently in English and have published various articles in reputable journals in order to correct our manuscript to enhance the quality of English language of our manuscript. Moreover, we will also conduct a proofreading process in the post-acceptance stage of our manuscript in which we will ask our colleagues who are the visiting lecturers at our institutions and native citizens in America, and thus they are fluent in English writing.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude on your valuable comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your recommendations. We have also changed the font of the modified information in our paper to red to make it easier for the reviewer to follow our changes. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Dear authors

Based on the analyses conducted, as well as the clarity and relevance of the aspects presented, the article appears to be well-structured and addresses important issues related to innovation, sustainability, and organizational success. The conclusions are grounded in the evidence presented and offer significant insights.

Response 1: We would like to express our gratitude on your positive feedback. We have made numerous improvements in our manuscript according to the comments of all of the reviewers.

Comment 2: The sample size is small; however, the study is very interesting, and generalizations may not be possible.

Response 2: Thanks for your positive comments. We have also provided the reasons for selecting 315 entrepreneurs as our sample size, which was enough for making appropriate conclusions in Section 3.2: “Sampling strategies, sampling design and data collection” (page 13-14).

Comment 3: However, before considering publication, it is important to have the article's English reviewed to ensure it meets the standards and requirements of the journal, a task for which I am not qualified. This may involve adjustments to the wording, formatting, and references, as well as a detailed review to detect grammatical errors.

Response 3: Thanks for your recommendations on the quality of our manuscript’s English language. We have carefully re-read our manuscript and asked our two colleagues who are fluently in English and have published various articles in reputable journals in order to correct our manuscript to enhance the quality of English language of our manuscript. Furthermore, we will also conduct a proofreading process in the post-acceptance stage of our manuscript in which we will ask our colleagues who are the visiting lecturers at our institutions and native citizens in America, and thus they are fluent in English writing

We would like to express our gratitude to your time and the helpful feedback, now we can see that our article is completely different, much better thanks to your recommendations and motivations.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

( ) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

Response 1:  Thanks for your response to comment on the quality of English language. We have carefully re-read our manuscript and asked our two colleagues who are fluently in English and have published various articles in reputable journals in order to correct our manuscript to enhance the quality of English language of our manuscript. Moreover, we will also conduct a proofreading process in the post-acceptance stage of our manuscript in which we will ask our colleagues who are the visiting lecturers at our institutions and native citizens in America, and thus they are fluent in English writing.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude on your valuable comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your recommendations. We have also changed the font of the modified information in our paper to red to make it easier for the reviewer to follow our changes. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved       

Thanks for your feedback. We have improved our discussion of our findings according to your comments

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved       

Thanks to your comments, we have made various improvements in discussing our results

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The research presents entrepreneurs survey results in Ho Chi Minh City region, Vietnam, where high entrepreneurial activity is observed. The authors aim to evaluate the effects of entrepreneurial ecosystem on organizational creativity, firm innovation, and new venture performance. The authors indicate which gap in literature they try to fill through their comprehensive research by using the case study of Vietnam. The research is well-designed, detailed and well-grounded in the previous research findings. The authors use a lot of scientific sources devoted to the theme. Hypotheses set for the research are described in details and well-thought-out according to the previous research findings. The logic for hypotheses setting is visually presented. Hypotheses are grounded in theory, successively follow from each other. Throughout the research the authors demonstrate linkages between financing, culture, creativity, and innovation within business sector. The authors made pre-test for their methodological solution with experts from academia and business sector. The authors critically evaluate their findings comparing them to the previous studies and precisely indicate whether their results support or disagree with the previous experience. The authors demonstrate deep knowledge in the theme.  Their findings are of scientific and practical importance.

Response 1: We would like to express our gratitude on your positive feedback. We have made numerous improvements in our manuscript according to your recommendations and the comments of all of the reviewers.

Comment 2: According to the reviewer, some issues may be addressed by the authors. First, the authors try theoretically and empirically to cover very wide topic within the research. This requires precisely set accents in the text for better readability and demonstration of novel findings.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. We have precisely set accents in the text for better readability and demonstration of novel findings by these following actions:

-        Emphasize and make explicit the definitions and their associated measurements scales of our major variables including new venture performance – BuSuc, organizational creativity – OGC, firm innovation – INO, entrepreneurial financial support – FIN, and entrepreneurial culture – CUL in our section 2: “Theoretical background and hypotheses development” (page 4-12), Section 3.1: “Measures” (page 12-13), and Appendix A (page 38-39).

-        Provide a paragraph which summarizes the main findings and their significance at the end of Section 1 “Introduction” (page 4) to set the stage for the detailed discussions that follow, as well as reinforce how those findings fill the research gap identified

-        Provide some paragraphs that summarize the main findings of our research and their significance, novelty, and differentiation, as well as highlight our summary in Section 5 “Discussion” (Page 21-22, 23, and 25).

Comment 3: Second, the authors very intensively use abbreviations that sometimes make the text hardly readable.

Response 3: Thanks for your valuable comments. In the initial manuscript, we have used several acronyms to keep the length of our paper in an adequate requirement. However, we acknowledged that the intensive usage of abbreviations made our study difficult to read. In our revised manuscript, we have only kept the acronyms of the 5 major factors (new venture performance – BuSuc, organizational creativity – OGC, firm innovation – INO, entrepreneurial financial support – FIN, and entrepreneurial culture – CUL) and the resource-based view (RBV) theory in our research framework and written the other acronyms in proper forms throughout our paper, so that it will be easier to read our research.

Comment 4: Third, questionnaire is not provided in Appendix.

Response 4: In the initial manuscript, we have provided our full items of our survey questionnaire in “Table 2. Properties of the constructs”. However, thanks to your recommendations, we have only kept the codings/abbreviations of our variables and their items in Table 2, concurrently moving the questionnaire to the Appendix A (page 38-39) in our revised manuscript.

Comment 5: Fourth, conclusions have to be organized in accordance with hypotheses.

Response 5: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have organized our conclusions in accordance with proposed hypotheses in Section 6: “Conclusion” (page 28-29) as following:

“This study examined the influences of FIN and CUL on BuSuc through the mediating roles of OGC and INO by utilizing a data set of 315 entrepreneurs of new ventures conducting their business in Ho Chi Minh City region, Vietnam. It employed a structured questionnaire to gather data from those respondents. After that, it offered numerous findings which contributed tremendously to existed literature by using the results of data analysis applying PLS-SEM. Firstly, our results demonstrated that FIN and CUL have significant and positive direct effects on OGC and INO. Thus, by consulting and utilizing the most frequently measurement scales of entrepreneurial ecosystem factors, this study offered a comprehensive viewpoint which demonstrated extensive external sources of FIN and CUL that played an essential role in enhancing both OGC and INO of new ventures, which can be leveraged in forthcoming investigations to enhance knowledge in the entrepreneurship field. Secondly, this study also confirmed the positive impacts of OGC and INO on BuSuc, solving current debates which illustrated the mixed impacts in the OGC-BuSuc and INO-BuSuc relationships, while offering a deeper knowledge on the antecedents of BuSuc. Thirdly, our results approved a significant and positive influence of OGC on INO, approving previous arguments which stated that OGC generates novel concepts, while INO implements those ideas so that OGC can be developed as the initial phase of INO to improve BuSuc. Finally, our results demonstrated that FIN and CUL have significant and positive indirect effects on BuSuc through partial mediating roles of OGC and INO. Therefore, this research was a revolutionary examination to investigate and approve OGC and INO as the mediators in the associations between FIN, CUL, and BuSuc, providing an extensive picture of the comprehensive influences of both internal and external mechanisms on BuSuc. Thus, this study resolved extant debates whether FIN and CUL have direct impact on BuSuc or have no direct influence whereas internal factors mediate the relationship between them, concurrently providing the comprehensive results of FIN and CUL encouraging the acknowledgment of other scientists about the significance of FIN and CUL in the development of the literature on the entrepreneurship. Furthermore, it enlarged the RBV theory in the circumstance of entrepreneurship through approving that entrepreneurs and their new ventures can accomplish superior performance through manipulating FIN and CUL as external resources to create and promote their OGC and INO as internal resources and abilities. Thus, this study placed an emphasis on the both organizational and national sustainable development on the importance of OGC and INO in developing sustainable BuSuc, which can lead to both organizational and national sustainable development.”

Comment 6: Fifth, why do the authors think that 315 entrepreneurs for survey is enough for making conclusions? This has to be explained.

Response 6: Thanks for your feedback. We have provided the reasons for selecting 315 entrepreneurs as our sample size, which was enough for making appropriate conclusions in Section 3.2: “Sampling strategies, sampling design and data collection” (page 13-14) as following:

“With regard to the empirical data collecting sample size in this research, the se-lected sample size was depended on the instructions as the sample size is equal 50 which is acknowledged as poor, 300 as good, 500 as very good, and more perceived as an excellent sample [164]. Moreover, a few authors proposed a minimum subjects to item ratio in EFA of at least 5:1 [164]. The study's conceptual framework, which consists of 34 questions across five variables, required at least 170 cases (34x5) of participations; yet, the more participations, the better [164].”

“From November 2021 to June 2023, the final sample size used in this study was 315 that were completed questionnaires—215 completed online and 100 completed in hard copies—made up the final valid data set. This study selected a large sample size including 315 entrepreneurs because a large sample size can represent the population precisely. Moreover, it restricts the effect of outliers and extreme observations, with 315 respondents that can be a sufficiently large sample size and is also crucial to generate results among variables that are significantly different [164].”

Comment 7: Sixth, the authors sometimes indicate covid-19 pandemic in the context of business activity level and success. In this regard, the factor of covid-19 pandemic has to be discussed. 

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We totally agree with your feedback. Therefore, we have discussed the factors of COVID-19 pandemic including its roots and negative effects on the context of business activity level and success in Section 1 “Introduction” (page 2-3) as following:

“Nevertheless, beginning in March 2020, the World Health Organization acknowledged that the contamination brought on by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, also recognized as COVID-19 which was first discovered in Wuhan, China in 2019, reached a global epidemic level - an extensive health crisis worldwide [8]. As a result, various national ministries enforced lockdown and quarantine to lessen the expanded effects of the epidemic, and thus they restricted numerous business functions and activities which provided a huge shock to many commercial institutions, including micro-and small-sized companies and start-ups [9]. Therefore, the COVID-19 epidemic has generated huge fluctuation in the context of business and society worldwide [10]. Thus, the COVID-19 epidemic caused negative situations in firm performance, especially new ventures through a decrease in profit, deformation of their value-adding chains, reduce of employees’ healthiness and happiness, restriction of their business activities, and decline their firm creativity and innovation [11].

Because of the COVID-19 epidemic, 90 percent of enterprises suffered severe harms, with various cutting back on operations, stopping them altogether, or even declaring bankruptcy, so there were a great number of businesses that stopped operating—more than 100,000 organizations—with micro-and small-sized companies and novel established firms suffering the largest losses as a consequence of the Covid-19 epidemic [12]. Therefore, among the novel startups, the proportion of absolutely success organizations was only 5 percent, while the organizations which encountered failure occupied 37 percent [13]. Furthermore, the quantity of ventures that withdrew from the marketplace in 2023 was 172.578 organizations, increased approximately 20 percent compared to 2022 [4]. Those depressed situations in Vietnamese entrepreneurship can be analyzed as the consequences of negative circumstances of both external resources – entrepreneurial financial support (FIN) and entrepreneurial culture (CUL) [14-16] – and internal resources – organizational creativity (OGC) and firm innovation (INO) [17,18] – due to the COVID-19 epidemic crisis. The presence of FIN was gradually limited [14], creating the harmful effects on new ventures [15]. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the entrepreneurship rate regarding CUL was only one entrepreneur amongst 140 Vietnamese, which was equal 80 in Southeast Asia and the average in the US, Europe, and Japan was 10, turning to a disadvantageous circumstance embedded in Vietnamese entrepreneurship [16]. Considering the internal resources, due to the COVID-19 epidemic crisis, the capacities of regional and institutional technique, technology and INO are still unsteady, young, and disintegrated [17]. Moreover, entrepreneurs and new ventures did not involve actively in experiments, creative and innovative actions, and implementations of novel technique and technology; causing Vietnamese new ventures unusually adapted, utilized, and improved novel technology, OGC, and INO [18].”

We would like to express our gratitude to your time and the helpful feedback, now we can see that our article is completely different, much better thanks to your recommendations and motivations.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

It is recommended to proofread the text. For example, line 597 - dot at the end of the sentence is absent.

Response 1:  Thanks for your response to comment on the quality of English language. We have carefully re-read our manuscript and asked our two colleagues who are fluently in English and have published various articles in reputable journals in order to correct our manuscript to enhance the quality of English language of our manuscript. Moreover, we will also conduct a proofreading process in the post-acceptance stage of our manuscript in which we will ask our colleagues who are the visiting lecturers at our institutions and native citizens in America, and thus they are fluent in English writing.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude on your valuable comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your recommendations. We have also changed the font of the modified information in our paper to red to make it easier for the reviewer to follow our changes. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

Thanks to your feedback, we have divided long paragraphs, moved Table 2 to appendix, rewritten our abstract, mentioned research gaps earlier, provided the summary at the end of our introduction

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

Thanks to your feedback, we have provided some paragraphs that summarize our main findings and their significance. Besides that, we have also utilized your suggestions to add transition phrases like "To summarize...” to highlight our summary in the final paragraph of Section 5 “Discussion”

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Thanks to your feedback, we have provided the summary at the end of our introduction

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

Thanks to your feedback, we have also integrated our limitations and research recommendations for future studies into the summary located in the end of Section 1 “Introduction” as well.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The article is well-prepared and offers valuable insights into the dynamics of entrepreneurial financial support and culture in fostering organizational creativity and firm innovation. The thorough application of the Resource-Based View theory and the robust empirical analysis makes this study a good contribution to understanding the factors driving new venture performance.

Response 1: We would like to express our gratitude on your positive feedback. We have made numerous improvements in our manuscript according to your valuable recommendations and the comments of all of the reviewers.

Comment 2:

Below I have included some suggestions for improving the article

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

The article's content is well-described and well-contextualized within the existing theoretical and empirical research framework, making a significant contribution to the entrepreneurship literature.

Is it possible to write this article more concisely and make it more succinct?

I suggest dividing long paragraphs, which are difficult to read. For example: lines 30 – 93, lines 261 – 303, lines 306-342, and others.

Please consider moving Table 2 to the annex. It improves the readability.

Abstract

The abstract should be corrected. I suggest you include the following steps:

·      Clearly state the main topic and the purpose of your research. What is the research question or problem being addressed?

·      Then briefly describe the methods used to conduct the research. What type of study was conducted? What were the key techniques or procedures?

·      In the next step summarize the main findings or results of the study. What were the significant outcomes?

·      Finally conclude with the implications of the findings. What is the significance of the results? How do they contribute to the field?

Introduction

Clearly state the research gap earlier in the introduction to immediately highlight the contribution of the study. Now, this information is in lines 108–121.

Consider summarizing the main findings and their significance at the end of the introduction to set the stage for the detailed discussions that follow.

Response 2: Thanks for your helpful comments. We have improved our research in the revised manuscript regarding you feedback as following:

-        We have divided long paragraphs in order to make them easier to read. For example,

o   In Section 1: “Introduction”, we have separated them into various smaller paragraphs to clearly demonstrated the main ideas of each paragraph including (1) the background of study, (2) practical issues – empirical gaps, (3) research gaps, (4) “what we know” in the literature related to our study, (5) the urgency of conducting our study and its contribution, (6) summary our of main findings and their significance, as well as reinforce how those findings fill the research gap identified, concurrently providing our limitations and research guidelines for future studies.

o   In Section 2: “Theoretical background and hypotheses development”, especially Section 2.7 and 2.8, we have divided long paragraphs so that each paragraph exhibited the relevant previous findings corresponding with each of our proposed hypotheses.

o   In Section 5: “Discussion”, we have also divided long paragraphs to make sure that each paragraph demonstrated our results and discussions with each of our proposed hypotheses.

-        In the initial manuscript, we have provided our full items of our survey questionnaire in “Table 2. Properties of the constructs”. However, thanks to your recommendations, we have only kept the codings/abbreviations of our variables and their items in Table 2, concurrently moving the questionnaire to the Appendix A (page 38-39) in our revised manuscript.

-        We have also rewritten our abstract according to your valuable guideline (page 1)

-        We have mentioned the research gaps earlier in our introduction which is located after the paragraphs depicting research context and practical gaps to highlight the contribution of our study.

-        We have also provided a paragraph which summarizes the main findings and their significance at the end of Section 1 “Introduction” (page 4) to set the stage for the detailed discussions that follow, as well as reinforce how those findings fill the research gap identified.

Comment 3: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

The research design is well-articulated, employing a quantitative method and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The design includes a questionnaire survey conducted with 315 entrepreneurs from new ventures in the Ho Chi Minh City region, Vietnam​.

The research questions are explicitly stated. The specific research questions include: RQ1: To what extent do entrepreneurial financial support and entrepreneurial culture influence organizational creativity and firm innovation? RQ2: To what extent do organizational creativity and firm innovation influence new venture performance? RQ3: Do organizational creativity and firm innovation mediate the relationships between entrepreneurial financial support, entrepreneurial culture, and new venture performance?

The hypotheses (from H1-H10) are clearly developed based on the Resource-Based View (RBV) theory and empirical literature.

Response 3: Thanks for your positive comments.

Comment 4: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

The article’s discussion effectively integrates theoretical and empirical insights, providing a coherent, balanced, and compelling narrative on the factors influencing new venture performance.

Consider adding transition phrases like "To summarize ..." or others, to highlight the summary in the "Discussion" section  in lines 967-993!

Response 4: Thanks to your helpful recommendations, we have provided some paragraphs that summarize the main findings of our research and their significance, novelty, and differentiation at the end of the discussions of our results for each research questions (Page 21-22, 23, and 25). Besides that, we have also utilized your suggestions to add transition phrases like "To summarize...” to highlight our summary in the final paragraph of Section 5 “Discussion”

Comment 5: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

The empirical research results are presented in a clear and organized manner, with thorough explanations and appropriate use of visual aids to enhance understanding.

Please consider adding a concise summary of the results in the summary section.

Response 5: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. We have provided a paragraph which summarizes the main findings and their significance at the end of Section 1 “Introduction” (page 4) to set the stage for the detailed discussions that follow, as well as reinforce how those findings fill the research gap identified.

Comment 6: Is the article adequately referenced?

The references include a broad range of sources, from theoretical frameworks like the Resource-Based View (RBV) theory to empirical studies on organizational creativity, firm innovation, and entrepreneurial financial support. 201 references.

Response 6: Thanks for your positive feedback. We have eliminated some references to precisely set accents in the text for better readability and demonstration of novel findings by emphasizing and making explicit the definitions, their associated measurements scales of our major variables, as well as their causal relationships.

Comment 7: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

I recommend summarizing the key findings and their significance clearly in the introduction. Reinforce how the study fills the research gap identified.

Additionally in summary offer specific recommendations for future research, highlighting any limitations of the current study and suggesting how these could be addressed in subsequent research.

Now this information is placed in subsections “5.1. Practical Implications” and “5.2. Limitations and Future Research”. Consider moving this text to the summary.

Response 7: Thanks for your valuable comments. We have also integrated our limitations and research recommendations for future studies into the summary located in the end of Section 1 “Introduction” as well.

We would like to express our gratitude to your time and the helpful feedback, now we can see that our article is completely different, much better thanks to your recommendations and motivations.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

( ) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

Response 1:  Thanks for your response to comment on the quality of English language. We have carefully re-read our manuscript and asked our two colleagues who are fluently in English and have published various articles in reputable journals in order to correct our manuscript to enhance the quality of English language of our manuscript. Moreover, we will also conduct a proofreading process in the post-acceptance stage of our manuscript in which we will ask our colleagues who are the visiting lecturers at our institutions and native citizens in America, and thus they are fluent in English writing.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude on your valuable comments. We have revised our manuscript according to your recommendations. We have also changed the font of the modified information in our paper to red to make it easier for the reviewer to follow our changes. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thanks for your positive feedback

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Structural equation modelling can well be used to study the performance of new ventures. The model outcomes are well-tested and interesting to researchers and practitioners alike, despite the pandemic-linked period being researched. Assembling data can be a burden, which is taken in a limited but convincing way, paving the way for further research, also beyond the interesting region covered in the study. Sometimes, the writing can be improved. For example, the abbreviation RBV in the abstract is unclear (check throughout) and HCMC stands for the Ho Chi Minh City Region, it seems. 

Response 1: Thanks for your positive comments. We have made numerous improvements in our manuscript regarding your feedback, as well as the comments of all of the reviewers. In the initial manuscript, we have used several acronyms to keep the length of our paper in an adequate requirement. However, we acknowledged that the excessive usage of acronyms made our study difficult to read. In our revised manuscript, we have only kept the acronyms of the 5 major factors (new venture performance – BuSuc, organizational creativity – OGC, firm innovation – INO, entrepreneurial financial support – FIN, and entrepreneurial culture – CUL) and the resource-based view (RBV) theory in our research framework and written the other acronyms in proper forms throughout our paper, so that it will be easier to read our research. Moreover, we have also made explicit the abbreviation RBV in our abstract as the resource-based view (RBV) theory.

We would like to express our gratitude to your time and the helpful feedback, now we can see that our article is completely different, much better thanks to your comments and motivations.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

Response 1:  Thanks for your response to comment on the quality of English language. We have carefully re-read our manuscript and asked our two colleagues who are fluently in English and have published various articles in reputable journals in order to correct our manuscript to enhance the quality of English language of our manuscript. Moreover, we will also conduct a proofreading process in the post-acceptance stage of our manuscript in which we will ask our colleagues who are the visiting lecturers at our institutions and native citizens in America, and thus they are fluent in English writing.

5. Additional clarifications