The Impact of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurship on Entrepreneurial Intention: Entrepreneurial Attitude as a Mediator and Entrepreneurship Education Having a Moderate Effect

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is sound and includes all the components of a good article, but a few points may lead to further improvement.

1. The abstract is too lengthy, and the author may consider shortening it.
2. The title can be shortened to “The Impact of Self-Efficacy on Entrepreneurial Intention: Attitude as Mediator, Education as Moderator".
3. I advise authors to provide a separate table for conceptions of the study concept to allow the readers to grasp the definitions of the concepts of the study quickly.
4. I advise the authors to conclude the introduction section by discussing the article's organisation.
5. The theoretical background of the study is well-written.
6. Please split hypotheses from the text; they are confusing.
7. Replace methods with research methodology
8. Specify that you have used convenience purposive sampling on probability sampling. Also, mention that your study is quantitive and deductive.
9. Please report demographic data if you have it in a table.
10. Please don’t mix analysis with research methodology.
11. Kindly attach the questionnaire used as an appendix.
12. Develop a pictorial representation of the developed model.
13. Discussion is good, but you will need to develop two separate sections for the study's theoretical and practical implications.
14. Please enrich your study with this recent reference, “Purpose-Driven Resilience: A Blueprint for Sustainable Growth in Micro- and Small Enterprises in Turbulent Contexts, 2025.

All the best

Author Response

Thank you for your review opinion. I am sending you the attached file by combining Kab Won Kang's reply and the revised review paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the researchers for their efforts in this valuable study entitled: The Effect of Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy on Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Effect of Entrepreneurial Attitude and the Moderating Effect of Entrepreneurship Education, in Korea.

I recommend reconsidering the following points to improve future research:

 

1. In the Abstract: I would like to point out here that after stating the main results, the main contribution and the theoretical and practical implications should be followed.
2. 2. In the keywords: entrepreneurship (ES), it is better to complete the term (Effect of Entrepreneurship), and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (SE) It is better to add (ESE).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

The authors collected data from multiple universities (i.e., a nested structure), yet did not apply multilevel modeling (MLM) to account for potential intra-group correlation. This compromises the robustness and generalizability of the findings.

Please consider all the other comments below: 

1. The paper repeatedly makes causal inferences (e.g., "SE increases EI", "EE leads to more rational EI"), but the data is cross-sectional. SEM does not confirm causality in such designs. This weakens the credibility of their claims regarding cause-and-effect pathways between variables.
2. Although the gender imbalance is acknowledged, the authors merely state there’s "no significant difference." However, they don't test for interaction effects between gender and the main paths—particularly since self-efficacy and entrepreneurial attitudes are often gendered constructs in prior literature.
3. Entrepreneurship (ES) is vaguely defined. Using risk sensitivity, initiative, and adventurousness as its components is arbitrary and lacks a grounding in the widely accepted literature on entrepreneurship.
4. The link between ES and the TPB/EIM frameworks is forced and not theoretically integrated—the constructs are treated as independent without a precise model of their interaction.
5. Entrepreneurship education (EE) is treated as a binary variable (experienced vs. not). This is a massive oversimplification: No detail is provided on the nature, depth, or duration of EE exposure. There's no control for heterogeneity in course content, delivery style, or instructor influence.

6. All variables were measured through self-report surveys in a single session, increasing the risk of CMB. There's no mention of procedural or statistical remedies (e.g., Harman’s single-factor test).

7. The authors did not perform model fit comparisons, alternative model testing, or bootstrapping to check the mediation/moderation paths' reliability. Given the complexity of the model, this undermines the robustness.

8. Key potential confounders (e.g., family business background, prior entrepreneurial exposure, and socio-economic status) are completely omitted. These factors are known to strongly influence SE and EI.

9. The manuscript is only marginally connected to the journal's core themes. There's no clear contribution to sustainable entrepreneurship, environmental or social innovation, or SDG-related outcomes.

10. “Writing is repetitive in places, and key claims lack sufficient empirical or theoretical substantiation.”

Author Response

Thank you for your review opinion. I am sending you the attached file by combining Kab Won Kang's reply and the revised review paper.

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

satisfied

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

You could answer all my main comments. Therefore, the article can be accepted in its current form.