The Impact of Entrepreneurial Capital on CSR and New Joint Venture Performance in Emerging Economies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn terms of content, the article meets the standards and requirements. The presented goal was achieved, the article presents the issues, their importance and relevance in a good way. Parts "5. Discussion" and "6. Conclusions" could be expanded, even at the expense of shortening the (too extensive) part "3. Methodology" (for example, in 3.4, the structure of the sample is described in very detailed text, and then exactly the same is illustrated in the form table - it may be better to use a solution such as "the structure of the research sample is presented in table x" and provide only the table...)
Tables 3 and 4 in their current arrangement are difficult to read and analyze.
It is worth labeling the hypotheses better (for example, bolding the word "hypothesis "x") and presenting in a more clear way whether and how they have been verified
Additionally, the article requires linguistic/stylistic and technical correction, for example:
(line 30) This book provides a detailed look at how developing nations (should be article / paper)
(line 825) 4.3. Regrassion Analysis (should be 4.3. Regression Analysis
(lines 139 - 141) incorrect section numbering or missing section (2.1.1)
(lines 510 and 547) paragraph indentation too large
(line 598) the text is written in the first person, and the third person style is customarily used
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAdditionally, the article requires linguistic/stylistic and technical correction, for example:
(line 30) This book provides a detailed look at how developing nations (should be article / paper)
(line 825) 4.3. Regrassion Analysis (should be 4.3. Regression Analysis
(lines 139 - 141) incorrect section numbering or missing section (2.1.1)
(lines 510 and 547) paragraph indentation too large
(line 598) the text is written in the first person, and the third person style is customarily used
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. Attached here, please find my response file for your review. I have addressed all the comments and suggestions provided and have made the necessary revisions accordingly.
I would appreciate it if you could review the document at your earliest convenience and provide any additional feedback or confirmation that the revisions meet the required standards.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Md Jahir Uddin Khan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript covers a very interesting subject that is relevant since it revolves around analysis of the impact of Entrepreneurial Capital in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and New Joint Venture Firm Performance. The paper is well written. However, I have some issues and suggestions for its improvement as follows:
- Please revise the title: The impact of Entrepreneurial Capital in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and New Joint Venture Firm Performance in an Emerging Economics. It is grammatically incorrect and too long.
- In the abstract, please state the main objective of the paper.
- Remove the “Research Background” from the Introduction section.
- Please add a paragraph at the end of the Introduction Section stating the structure and organization of the paper.
- In the Introduction section, please state the what, why and how of the research, i.e. the main objective, the main rationale and motivation/inspiration for the paper and the methodology (how) it is applied.
- Please revise and shorten the second (literature review) section. I know you want to add this data and information; however, it is not contributing to this paper, rather it is declining its scientific contribution. This section looks and feels like it is a part of a professional paper or a student paper
- Figure 2. Conceptual Framework; and the hypothesis are part of the Methodology section, not the LR!!
- The methodology section is too extensive, it should shortly and concisely elaborate the decision for choosing a method, and not be 3-4 pages long!
- You have syntax errors in text, eg.; 4.3. Regrassion Analysis
Despite some merits paper does not meet standards that would allow its publication. Paper would require whole rewriting before it could be considered for publication. Regrettably, I have to recommend editors to advise major revision or rejection to this submission.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor grammar and syntax errors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. Attached file, please find my response file for your review. I have addressed all the comments and suggestions provided and have made the necessary revisions accordingly.
I would appreciate it if you could review the document at your earliest convenience and provide any additional feedback or confirmation that the revisions meet the required standards.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards
Md Jahir Uddin Khan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article under review discusses an interesting topic. However, the observed paper has some technical flaws.
According to the journal's instructions: "The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum". The abstract in this paper has 333 words, therefore it would be necessary to shorten the abstract to a maximum 200 words. Make sure that whenshortening the abstract, the following "This book..." must be removed, because it is an article, not a book. If the manuscript is already published as a book, be aware that our journal accepts only original and unpublished articles. Just as there is an explanation for the first abbreviation EC in the abstract that it means entrepreneurial capital, it is necessary to do same for NJV, or NJVs.
According to the journal's instructions: "In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1]..." In this paper, references in the integral text are given in parentheses, such as (Linton & Kask, 2017) in line 89, as well as in all other places.
Consider whether it is necessary to have so many sub-chaptersand separate them into text units, such as 2.2.11. or 5.1.4, etc. This way of text segmentation is more appropriate for a textbook. It would seem more appropriate if certain sublimations and merging of two subchapters say one or more them, were carried out, if the context allows it, because the paper has a lot of hypotheses, which can be commendable. The conceptual framework, which is a modern trend, also contributes to the quality of the paper and enables greater paper illustration.
Some subtitles have a colon (:) after them, while others don't. Perform unifcation.
The paper has conclusions, which are not mandatory, according to the journal's instructions, but it is certainly positive that they exist, as well as limitations and sugestions for future research.
In the case of graphs and tables created by the authors, it would perhaps be more appropriate to write in the source that the authors are the authors in question, and not one author since the work is co-authored. You should also pay attention to the tables, especially whether they move to the margin and the size of the letters and numbers within the tables so that they are visible and legible in their entirety.
In the bibliography at the end of the reference, it is not necessary to write in square brackets. Likewise, authors within one reference should be separated with a semicolon (;), not just a comma. Do not write the & sign between the authors, according to the journal's instructions. The years of publication are not written in a good place. They should be written near the end of the reference, in bold and without brackets. Take care that each reference begins with the last name of the author, and not as with references 1, 2, 3, 27, 46, 97 and 98. It is mandatory to delete 607 and 608, in the last two references, because in the paper they are only numbers 103 and 104. The paper is richly theoretically supported and the number 104 references is enviable, while 608 references would be more suitable for a book.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. Attached file, please find my response file for your review. I have addressed all the comments and suggestions provided and have made the necessary revisions accordingly.
I would appreciate it if you could review the document at your earliest convenience and provide any additional feedback or confirmation that the revisions meet the required standards.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards
Md Jahir Uddin Khan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
