Sustainability and Rural Empowerment: Developing Women’s Entrepreneurial Skills Through Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article is defined by the authors as a systematic review that synthesizes recent evidence on the factors contributing to the success and barriers experienced by rural women entrepreneurs. I agree with the authors that some future studies and the creation of more potent interventions to encourage the entrepreneurship of rural craftsmen in the post-pandemic setting can be built upon the updated basis provided by this review.

The paper demonstrates novelty and scientific meaningfulness by addressing a highly relevant and evolving research area: the factors influencing rural women’s entrepreneurial success. Combining systematic review and bibliometric analysis, it not only synthesizes recent studies but also emphasizes trends such as international collaboration and the focus on developing countries, which are timely and significant in understanding entrepreneurial dynamics in rural settings. Highlighting both success factors (entrepreneurial competencies, resilience, family support, etc.) and persistent barriers (traditional gender roles, infrastructure issues) provides a comprehensive perspective, contributing meaningfully to the literature on gender and entrepreneurship in rural areas.

The paper is scientifically robust, particularly with its structured insights into individual, social, structural, and innovation-related factors. The discussion on how COVID-19 has impacted these ventures, both in terms of challenges and fostering resilience, adds depth and contemporary relevance.

As a suggestion, it would be beneficial to include not only one European journal in Table 1. Also, I would recommend naming other authors while citing them as it is a bit inconvenient to scroll the screen all the time to see the reference list.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In terms of English language accuracy, the paper is clear, precise, and technically well-written, adhering to academic conventions. Minor redundancies, such as the repetitions across sentences, could be streamlined to enhance flow.

Overall, it is articulate and effectively conveys complex ideas in a reader-friendly manner.

Although the article would benefit from some proofreading.

Author Response

As a suggestion, it would be beneficial to include not only one European journal in Table 1:

European author added

Also, I would recommend naming other authors while citing them as it is a bit inconvenient to scroll the screen all the time to see the reference list.

The MDPI style requires that only numbers be included as citations and references should be placed at the end.
The APA standard allows the authors to be included in the citation (which does not apply to this journal).
For the reasons stated above, the citations continue to be displayed as required by the MDPI standard.
Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this manuscript is very meaningful. This systematic review synthesizes recent evidence on the factors contributing to the success and barriers experienced by rural women entrepreneurs. This is a literature review. Although some simple econometric methods were used to handle the relevant references, the analysis of this manuscript is still primarily qualitative. Unfortunately, the depth of analysis and the generalizability of the conclusions in this manuscript are clearly insufficient. In addition, this manuscript clearly did not follow the journal's template to modify the relevant format, resulting in poor readability.

The main problems are as follows.

1. Suggest adding numbering to the secondary headings of the manuscript to increase its readability.

2. The language of the manuscript should conform to the language habits and norms of English, such as “between 2020 and 2024” on line 91,149 and “from 2020--2024” on line 375, 472 should be “from 2020 to 2024” or “during 2020-2024”, etc.

3. Table 1 is too long, and there is no need to explain others' achievements in such detail. This is more like a list of literature. Furthermore, why is Table 1 only listing relevant literature published in 2024?

4. Is the literature coverage of Figure 1 from 2020 to 2024? Please explain it.

5. The authors only analyzed relevant literature published during 2020-2024, while literature related to the research subject should not be limited to this time period.

6. This manuscript outlines many major factors, but does not clarify their respective mechanisms of influence on the success of rural women entrepreneurs.

7. Finally, there is a lack of research prospects in “5. Conclusions”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1. Suggest adding numbering to the secondary headings of the manuscript to increase its readability.

the observation was corrected

2. The language of the manuscript should conform to the language habits and norms of English, such as “between 2020 and 2024” on line 91,149 and “from 2020--2024” on line 375, 472 should be “from 2020 to 2024” or “during 2020-2024”, etc.

the observation was corrected

3. Table 1 is too long, and there is no need to explain others' achievements in such detail. This is more like a list of literature. Furthermore, why is Table 1 only listing relevant literature published in 2024?

the observation was corrected

4. Is the literature coverage of Figure 1 from 2020 to 2024? Please explain it.

the observation was corrected

5. The authors only analyzed relevant literature published during 2020-2024, while literature related to the research subject should not be limited to this time period.

the observation was corrected

 

6. This manuscript outlines many major factors, but does not clarify their respective mechanisms of influence on the success of rural women entrepreneurs.

the observation was corrected

 

7. Finally, there is a lack of research prospects in “5. Conclusions”.

the observation was corrected

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to identify the factors that contribute to the success and barriers faced by rural women entrepreneurs, emphasizing the need for holistic approaches that enhance skills, psychological capital, support networks, resource access, and innovation to empower these women economically and promote sustainable development in their communities. The paper's subject is in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. However, the paper is not well-structured and some parts of the paper are scarce. More detailed comments are provided below.

1.     The abstract is not well written. It is unbalanced and too results-oriented. The authors didn’t provide any context, background, or motivation for the study. They just summarized the results and main conclusions. The abstract should be supplemented with these missing elements, and the main contributions of the paper should be highlighted.

2.     I suggest the authors separate the literature review from the Introduction and extend it. They should also clearly identify the research gaps based on the reviewed literature. Make sure to cover all main topics of the paper (background, methodology). They should leave in the introduction the background of the study, aim, main research questions or hypothesis, a short explanation of the methodology, main results, conclusions, and contributions of the study. The authors should also add a paragraph at the end of the introduction briefly describing the remainder of the paper.

3. The literature review should be supplemented with some previous studies that cover the same topic (rural women entrepreneurship review studies), such as:

a.     Aggarwal, M., & Johal, R. K. (2021). Rural women entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and beyond. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 18(4), 373-392.

b.     Gautam, R. K., & Mishra, K. (2016). Study on rural women entrepreneurship in India: Issues and challenges. International journal of applied research, 2(2), 33-36.

4.     Methodology is scarcely explained. Most of the section is composed of bullet points without any deeper explanations. This is not a PowerPoint presentation. The presented material should be better explained and the authors should use the actual sentences not just the bullets.

5.     Similarly, the third section is also scarcely explained. The section starts with the Table without any previous text or explanation.

6.     In the third section there are three identical sub-headings (Implications and Analysis). The authors should sort these things out, systematize the results, and provide a coherent section.

7.     The authors should discuss the limitations of their study. They mention the limitations of the reviewed studies, but they should provide the limitations of their study as well.

8.     The authors should better highlight the main results, implications, conclusions, contributions, and future research directions in the Conclusion section.

9.     Some technical issues should be addressed:

a. Subheadings within the section should also be numbered.

b.     Tables and figures present in the paper should be mentioned somewhere in the main text. None of the figures and tables are quoted within the paper.

c.     References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors (provided template). For example, journal names are not abbreviated.

d.     Some references are not complete. They are missing important information such as volume, issue, or page numbers.

 

e.     Some parts of the text are formatted differently than the rest of the paper (e.g. different font size).

Author Response

the observations raised were resolved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised drafts provided by the authors also come with revision modes and annotations, which greatly affects readers' review. Overall, this manuscript appears to be very non-standard, especially with regards to the confusing numbering system. I feel that the authors submitted the revised manuscript in a hurry and did not take it seriously. There are some low-level errors.

The main problems are as follows.

1. Language is still an issue, for example “between 2020 and 2024” on line 18, “during the period between 2020 and 2024” on line 163, “between 2022 and 2024” on line 235 and “during the 2020-2024 period” 283-284 should be “during 2020-2024”.

2. “3.2 Implications and Analysis” repeated the title of “3[MA14].1 Implications and Analysis” and “3.3 Implications and Analysis”.

3. “4.11” on line 414 should be “4.1.1”.

4. The annotation method of some references is inappropriate, such as “[35] reported that” on line 428 and “[36] emphasize how” on line 434, etc.

5. “4.5. Limitations of the Study” should be the final part of the main text of this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Corrections made. Thank you for your valuable contributions that have allowed us to improve the research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues identified in the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore I suggest an acceptance of the paper in its present form.

Author Response

**The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues identified in the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore I suggest an acceptance of the paper in its present form.

R:

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of our revised manuscript. We are pleased to learn that the changes and improvements implemented in response to the previous round of review have significantly strengthened the quality of the work.

Your constructive feedback throughout the review process has been invaluable in elevating the academic standard of our research. We appreciate the time and attention dedicated to the evaluation of our manuscript.

We are honored by your recommendation for acceptance and hope that our contribution will be valuable to the scientific community.

Sincerely, The Authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The standardization of the literature review in this manuscript is still very poor! This is already the third time this manuscript has been reviewed. Some of the problems pointed out by the reviewer have not been revised. I am very concerned that if this manuscript is published, it will affect the reputation of the journal.

The main problems are as follows.

1. Table 1 is not fully displayed. Is the name “(2024-2024)”in Table 1 incorrect? Authors need to carefully adjust the format of Table 1.

2. The annotation method of some references is inappropriate, such as “[35] reported that” on line 428 and “[36] emphasize how” on line 434, etc.

3. There are too many third and fourth level titles.

4. “4.5. Limitations of the Study” should be the final part of the main text of this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

observations corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx