Academic Entrepreneurship Evolution: A Systematic Review of University Incubators and Startup Development (2018–2024)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your insightful contribution! The strengths of your research: the study  provides practical recommendations for policymakers and university administrators, making it a meaningful contribution to both academic discourse and policy development, however, (weaknesses and recommendations):1. the study does not  offers any valuable theoretical insights and discussions, 2. literature review could be improved with references: a)Shvetsova, O.; Bialevich, A.; Kim, J.; Voronina, M. Behavioral Model Deployment for the Transportation Projects within a Smart City Ecosystem: Cases of Germany and South Korea. Processes 2023, 11, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010048, b)Castro, P.M.; Ares-Pernas, A.; Dapena, A. Service-Learning Projects in University Degrees Based on Sustainable Development Goals: Proposals and Results. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197940

Author Response

All observations were cleaned up (highlighted in yellow).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors provide a bibliographic literature review on Sustainable innovation in academic entrepreneurship.

1.      Please also mention the authors name and not just [3]. Please state Author et al. [3].

2.      Can you please state the exact search query used. It doesn’t help if you state “related terms”. It would be much simpler if you just copy paste the search query used.

3.      Why did you used different search terms for different databases? I mean, you also changed the scope of the search terms used.

4.      You read the abstract of 1,850 articles to identify which one are relevant. Can you please specify how this was narrowed down to 200. Which criteria did you use?

5.      Remove the parts from 3.Results to the end of figure 1 and explain all this in the method. And please restructure this section again, as you do jump between different aspects of the PRISMA process.

6.      The figures are too small to be readable.

7.      This is not a systematic literature review. You have conducted a bibliographic analysis.

 

Author Response

All observations were raised, except that of Author et al. since the MDPI style does not contemplate it.

The rest are highlighted in green. The yellow is from reviewer pair 1.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a timely and significant topic and is well-structured. However, the title does not accurately reflect the content of the study. The phrase sustainable innovation appears only in the title, and the strategies for enhancing university incubators and start-ups are not clearly evident.

At the end of the introduction, it would be beneficial to include a paragraph outlining the structure of the study. Additionally, the method section should specify the data collection period, indicating when the database searches were conducted. The details of the Prisma process, currently presented in bullet points, would be better suited for a table or a more polished format within the method section.

Furthermore, some discrepancies exist between the numbers in Figure 1 and the earlier details provided; these should be reviewed and corrected. All figures should also be explicitly introduced within the text to ensure clarity and integration. Lastly, the limitations of the study should be addressed in the final considerations to provide a comprehensive analysis.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the thoroughness and value of the comments received. We are pleased to report that we have addressed the suggestions raised, which can be identified in the revised manuscript by the light blue highlighting. It is pertinent to mention that we have encountered some suggestions that present different perspectives among the different reviewers. In these cases, we have tried to implement balanced solutions that maintain the academic rigor and coherence of the manuscript, always respecting the MDPI guidelines and the original scope of the research.

We remain at your disposal for any additional clarification you may consider necessary, or to implement specific adjustments to further improve the quality of the manuscript.
We thank you for your valuable time and dedication in the review process.

Sincerely, the research team.
(Remarks highlighted in light blue)

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research makes both theoretical and practical contributions, which is good when compared to other articles.

This systematic review's methodology is thorough because the authors incorporated multiple databases, such as SCOPUS, WOS, and others. The triangulation source is also praiseworthy. Nevertheless, could the other provide a table that highlights the comparison of the main review methods?

The conclusions are sound and in line with the presented arguments and supporting data.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is okay

Author Response

This systematic review's methodology is thorough because the authors incorporated multiple databases, such as SCOPUS, WOS, and others. The triangulation source is also praiseworthy. Nevertheless, could the other provide a table that highlights the comparison of the main review methods?

 

the requested table was added

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for improvements, there are no comments for this version, good luck with publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for improvements, there are no comments for this version, good luck with publication.

 

Thanks!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You haven't provided a point by point response to my comments and only highlighted your changes in the main text. This makes it rather difficult to determine whether you have addressed all my comments.

Author Response

Observations raised

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have complied with all requests and the article can be published.

Author Response

Thanks!

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure  1 is not in English.

 

Section 3.1 (beginning of results) is in bullet points.

Author Response

Figure  1 is not in English.

changed

Section 3.1 (beginning of results) is in bullet points.

resolved.