Structural Equation Models to Determine the Relationship Between Startup Incubation Stages and the Graduation Rate of Incubators in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject matter is of interest considering the unsuccess rate of startups.

Authors should maintain a writing system according to the journal instructions, they should review the reference system.

The object of research is presented but is confused throughout the manuscript.

The structure of the instrument should be indicated in the manuscript.

The methodological supports of the manuscript should be reviewed for validity and reliability.

The authors should arrange and graphically present the results of the instrument.

The correlations could be in graphs showing the relationship.

The conclusions should show the results that are evident.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 1

The authors appreciate your review as it has allowed us to delve deeper into the aspects indicated, clarify the manuscript and improve it. Thank you so much!

The introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified.

The methodology has been expanded and clarified. Figures and tables have been improved. Likewise, the discussion has been reinforced by incorporating a guide to good practices.

The authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject matter is of interest considering the unsuccess rate of startups.

In general, the introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified and the contribution of this research has also been emphasized.

 

Authors should maintain a writing system according to the journal instructions, they should review the reference system.

The manuscript has been reviewed in depth and in addition, citations have been incorporated in different sections, the references system has been corrected.

 

The object of research is presented but is confused throughout the manuscript.

The objective has been simplified and clarified, both in the objectives section and throughout the manuscript, maintaining coherence.

          “…[93] Quantified the relationships between the different phases of the business incubation process. The results obtained showed that the “entrepreneurship diffusion” phase had a significant and strongly positive influence on pre-incubation, basic incubation and advanced incubation. Although the impact of each phase on the success of the ventures was not evaluated. Therefore, deepening the knowledge of the impact of the incubation phases on the results of the business incubators to evaluate the effectiveness of the incubation programs developed is the main interest of this work. The objective of this research was the proposal of a model that quantitatively relates the different incubation phases (Spreading, Pre-incubation, Basic incubation and Advance incubation) and the success of the startup incubators (Graduation) in Spain using structural equation modelling (SEM).

The relevance of our study lies in the proposal and validation of an empirical SEM model to know the impact of each incubation phase on the startup’s success and consequently the usefulness of the programs developed by business incubators in Spain. Besides the knowledge of the model per se, the results have great value for Business incubators managers to focus their actions to increase the success rate. Given the heterogeneity of Spanish business incubators and the wide sampling range, the model could be extended to other BIs with similar contexts that behave within the sample range.

 

The structure of the instrument should be indicated in the manuscript.

The methodological supports of the manuscript should be reviewed for validity and reliability.

The hypotheses have been incorporated in the first part of the document. The survey has been incorporated as supplementary material. The sample part has been reinforced, and the applied methodology has been reviewed for validity and reliability.

 

The authors should arrange and graphically present the results of the instrument.

The correlations could be in graphs showing the relationship.

The graphical information has been reviewed, complementing the results to visualize the goodness of the relationships of the variables with the constructors (a) and the relationship between constructors (b).

ç

The conclusions should show the results that are evident.

The discussion and conclusions have been reworked indicating the most relevant findings obtained from the study and their applicability.

  Thank you very much for your comments. We have carried out a thorough review of the manuscript and have taken into account point by point the recommendations that you have suggested to us. We believe that we have understood them, and we value them very positively. Thank you. We think that it has served to substantially improve the manuscript and right now it is more suitable for its publication.

Thank you very much, The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript investigates the relationship between startup incubation phases and graduation rates in Spanish incubators using structural equation modeling (SEM). It provides valuable insights into the positive contributions of pre-incubation, basic incubation, and advanced incubation stages to graduation rates while offering practical recommendations for improving incubator performance. By addressing actionable gaps in incubation processes, your study contributes meaningfully to the field and offers relevance for both researchers and practitioners.

The manuscript is well-structured and relevant, but the discussion section could better connect the results to practical applications. You rely on recent references, but the prevalence of self-citations should be justified in terms of advancing the field.Please add the following citations that are relevant to your research:

Yuan, C., Li, Y., Vlas, C. O., & Peng, M. W. (2018). Dynamic capabilities, subnational environment, and university technology transfer. Strategic Organization, 16(1), 35-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016667969

Vlas, C. O., de Góes, B. B., Vlas, R. E., & See, E. (2024). Competing in Innovation-Intensive Environments: The Role of Soft Power, Learning, and CEO Heuristics. Administrative Sciences, 14(8), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14080169

Your introduction outlines the study's purpose. You could emphasize what the study brings new to make your contribution stronger.

Your use of SEM is justified. You should discuss the rejection of Hypothesis 1 in more depth.

The generalizability of your 21% response rate raises concerns that need clarification, including how you handled missing data. To improve reproducibility, you should include the survey instrument as an appendix.

Your results are consistent with the evidence provided. Please elaborate on the implications of diminishing returns in certain incubation phases and offer more details on the advanced incubation phase’s services would enhance the discussion.

The study needs more descriptive legends and standalone explanations to improve clarity.

Your ethics and data availability statements meet basic requirements. You should also include explicit details on participant consent and confidentiality procedures.

Overall, you have defined clear objectives, used robust quantitative methods, and presented practical implications effectively, making this work a significant addition to the literature on startup ecosystems. Please follow the advice above to improve the manuscript. Good luck!

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

The authors appreciate your review as it has allowed us to delve deeper into the aspects indicated, clarify the manuscript and improve it. Thank you so much!

The introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified.

The methodology has been expanded and clarified. Figures and tables have been improved. Likewise, the discussion has been reinforced by incorporating a guide to good practices.

The authors

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript investigates the relationship between startup incubation phases and graduation rates in Spanish incubators using structural equation modeling (SEM). It provides valuable insights into the positive contributions of pre-incubation, basic incubation, and advanced incubation stages to graduation rates while offering practical recommendations for improving incubator performance. By addressing actionable gaps in incubation processes, your study contributes meaningfully to the field and offers relevance for both researchers and practitioners.

The manuscript is well-structured and relevant, but the discussion section could better connect the results to practical applications. You rely on recent references, but the prevalence of self-citations should be justified in terms of advancing the field.Please add the following citations that are relevant to your research:

Thank you for your comments. The recommended bibliography has been reviewed and incorporated into the manuscript.

Yuan, C., Li, Y., Vlas, C. O., & Peng, M. W. (2018). Dynamic capabilities, subnational environment, and university technology transfer. Strategic Organization, 16(1), 35-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016667969

Vlas, C. O., de Góes, B. B., Vlas, R. E., & See, E. (2024). Competing in Innovation-Intensive Environments: The Role of Soft Power, Learning, and CEO Heuristics. Administrative Sciences, 14(8), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14080169

Your introduction outlines the study's purpose. You could emphasize what the study brings new to make your contribution stronger.

In general, the introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified and the contribution of this research has also been emphasized.

Your use of SEM is justified. You should discuss the rejection of Hypothesis 1 in more depth.

The rejection of hypothesis 1 has been explained

Surprisingly, Hypothesis 1 was rejected (positive effect of Spreading on the Graduation rate), although the literature helped us understand this result. According to Asensio-Ciria et al (2024), the Spreading entrepreneur (Spread) phase had a strong positive effect on pre-incubation (Mustafa and Suparwata , 2024; Nana el al., 2023),  basic incubation (Dal Mas et al, 2023; Mustafa and Suparwata , 2024; Zhou, 2023)) and advanced incubation phases (Pinto and Rua, 2023; Galvão el al., 2019; , Annas and Meilinda, 2023;  Li et al., 2020). In this sense, business incubators in Spain were mostly of small and very small size, reduced number of technicians, generalist, public in nature, and they had limited accommodation capacity. These factors strongly restrict the access of startups to BIs; Therefore, the spreading entrepreneurship is a key phase and determines the incubation programs success. Once the entrepreneurship advances in the incubation, other phases were the most relevant for the success of the entrepreneurship outside the incubator.

The generalizability of your 21% response rate raises concerns that need clarification, including how you handled missing data. To improve reproducibility, you should include the survey instrument as an appendix.

The section has been revised and completed taking into account the suggestions you have made to me.

412 business incubators from Spain in 2022 were taken as population as shown in Table 2. A random sample composed of 88 complete questionnaires was collected (21.36% of the total). Incomplete surveys and those that showed logical inconsistencies were deleted. The minimal sample size was calculated with a confidence of 95% (Z = 1.96), an unknown expected proportion (P = 0.5). Once the information was collected, we observed that most of the regions were sufficiently represented (more than 10%), although three regions appeared without a response (La Rioja and the extra-peninsular cities of Ceuta and Melilla). Therefore, the sample was considered representative of the population of business incubators in Spain. The survey included 33 questions related to the phases of business incubators and 9 items on graduation rate (Table 3).

A survey was sent to all the BI in Spain, applying the following work procedure: Each survey was sent to the manager of each incubator, including an email and telephone number. In parallel, the manager was contacted, explaining the importance of the questionnaire and how to answer it. On a regular basis, doubts and the interpretation of the items were also solved. From there, a regular relationship usually arises, with constant feedback between the Funcas research team and the BI. As a consequence of this relationship, the questionnaire has been improved and the participation of BI is increasing each year. Important information for both parties that should appear in the final reports was highlighted, among others. Thanks to this relationship, it has been possible to improve and maintain the FUNCAS questionnaire actively over time. The design of the questionnaire was widely described in [109], [41] (Table S1 Business incubators survey).

 

In addition, in accordance with your suggestion, a survey has been incorporated as supplementary material.

 

Your results are consistent with the evidence provided. Please elaborate on the implications of diminishing returns in certain incubation phases and offer more details on the advanced incubation phase’s services would enhance the discussion.

Thank you very much for your comments. The implications of diminishing returns have been explained. In addition, a table of best practices and actions has been incorporated to improve the discussion.

The study needs more descriptive legends and standalone explanations to improve clarity.

Each table and figure have been clarified and revised, and designations standardized to improve clarity. Thank you for your suggestions.

 

Your ethics and data availability statements meet basic requirements. You should also include explicit details on participant consent and confidentiality procedures.

In this sense, each BI manager participates voluntarily and within the Funcas project. You know the anonymized use that will be made of the data, and you also express your consent to participate in the research.

The text of the article has been completed to clarify it.

A survey was sent to all the business incubators in Spain, applying the following work procedure: Each survey was sent to the manager of each incubator, including an email and telephone number. In parallel, the manager was contacted, explaining the importance of the questionnaire and how to answer it. On a regular basis, doubts and the interpretation of the items were also solved. From there, a regular relationship usually arises, with constant feedback between the Funcas research team and the As a consequence of this relationship, the questionnaire has been improved and the participation of business incubators is increasing each year. Important information for both parties that should appear in the final reports was highlighted, among others. Thanks to this relationship, it has been possible to improve and maintain the FUNCAS questionnaire actively over time.

 

Overall, you have defined clear objectives, used robust quantitative methods, and presented practical implications effectively, making this work a significant addition to the literature on startup ecosystems. Please follow the advice above to improve the manuscript. Good luck!

Thank you very much for your comments. We have carried out a thorough review of the manuscript and have taken into account point by point the recommendations that you have suggested to us. We believe that we have understood them, and we value them very positively. Thank you. We think that it has served to substantially improve the manuscript and right now it is more suitable for its publication.

Thank you very much, The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript. The study on startup incubators in Spain is relevant, especially considering the growing importance of startups in the economy. The use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a strong point, allowing the analysis of the relationships between incubation phases and graduation rates.
Suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript:
1- Explore more deeply the role of emerging technologies (e.g., AI) in incubation programs.
2- Hypothesis 1 (diffusion of entrepreneurship) was rejected without a detailed explanation as to why it had no significant impact on graduation rates. Investigate why hypothesis 1 was rejected, considering contextual variables or limitations in the data found.
3- Explain in more detail the graphs and tables, highlighting additional insights that can be extracted.
4- Add specific recommendations for incubator managers on how to implement basic improvements in the findings.
5- Although the article cites several sources, the review could be expanded to include international perspectives or more recent studies on incubators.
6- The limitations of Spanish incubators are mentioned, but suggestions for overcoming them are lacking.
7- Propose future lines of research that investigate how incubators can adopt more effective internationalization and sustainability strategies.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

The authors appreciate your review as it has allowed us to delve deeper into the aspects indicated, clarify the manuscript and improve it. Thank you so much

The introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified.

The methodology has been expanded and clarified. Figures and tables have been improved. Likewise, the discussion has been reinforced by incorporating a guide to good practices.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript. The study on startup incubators in Spain is relevant, especially considering the growing importance of startups in the economy. The use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a strong point, allowing the analysis of the relationships between incubation phases and graduation rates.

Suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript:
1- Explore more deeply the role of emerging technologies (e.g., AI) in incubation programs.

Thank you for the suggestion. The role of emerging technologies has been explored in depth, and they have also been linked to the best practice guides for each of the phases and their relationship to improve sustainability. We believe that this is of great interest.

Finally, with the results obtained and the discussion, a guide of good practices was built in each phase to improve the graduation rate (Table 7), which was linked to a proposal for actions in the BI, performances that favor innovation and the use of emerging technologies such as AI.

Although the guide incorporates actions on the different phases of incubation, we proceed to highlight those that would be applied to the advanced phase of incubation that showed a greater effect on the graduation rate. Advisors and mentors are highly specialized both by sector and in sustainable development since in this phase it may be necessary for startups to sign agreements with partners or investors, shareholder agreements, and the internationalization of their products or services; secondly, that the management of intangible resources and social aspects and relations is supported by the incorporation of staff or through agreements with other entities that provide services such as law firms or other specialists who mentor in specific aspects. The social approach and ecological practices should be promoted both in the management of BI and in startups. After graduation, it would be very interesting to follow up on the companies graduated by BI to monitor survival and progress and measure the performance of the incubator with each startup.

 

Table 7. Best Management Practices (BPS) for results improvement

Incubation phase	BMPs	Business incubator actions	Sustainability actuations	Emerging technology’s role	Applications
Spreading entrepreneurship	Training and mentoring programs	Strategic planning.	Innovation in sustainability	Support to technical advisors	✓✓
		Create learning.	Environmental and Social Awareness	Efficient search for information.	✓✓
	Social approach and ecological practices	Promoting project recruitment.	Promotion of Sustainable Business Models	Automation tasks.	✓✓✓
Preincubation	Training and mentoring programs	Training in Business Plan, legal forms and others	Environmental and Social Awareness	Simplify business plan	✓✓✓✓
	Office space and technology support in BI	Sustainable development as strategic planning.	Promotion of sustainable business models	Kpis and ratios	✓✓✓
	Networking	Regular meetings.	Resource efficiency	Data analysis	✓✓✓
Basic Incubation	Training of specialized technicians	Specialized BI and technicians	Innovation in sustainability	Immersive training (AR) and (VR).	✓✓✓✓
	Networking	Regular meetings.	Resource efficiency	Cloud solutions	✓✓✓
	Knowledge and technology transfer	Connecting university with the market	Innovation in sustainability	Innovative activities	✓✓✓✓
Advanced Incubation	High specialization of advisors	External support	Innovation in sustainability	Networked resources	✓✓✓✓✓
	Specialized Support Network Services	Internationalization agreements	Promotion of sustainable business	Security in transactions	✓✓✓✓
	Connecting	At the institutional level and universities	Resource Efficiency	Hybrid connections	✓✓✓
	Global Market Focus	Specialization of technicians and mentors	Resource Efficiency	Information just in time	✓✓✓✓✓

Regarding the improvement of sustainability practices, it is recommended to promote the creation of Sustainable Business Models by supporting initiatives focused on sustainability in advice and mentoring, encouraging the development of products or services that address environmental, social and economic challenges. This will also lead to raising environmental and social awareness, in information sessions and training days. In the BI, resources and knowledge are shared that generate greater efficiency in their use and the reduction of costs and inputs. Likewise, the BI could promote Access to Green Finance, specific for sustainable projects [14].

Regarding the applications of emerging technologies in the BI, these can help both advisors and entrepreneurs; in phase 1 (dissemination of entrepreneurship) it helps advisors to obtain information and market data in real time and automates administrative processes; in phase 2, Pre-incubation, AI simplifies the preparation of the business plan and the economic and financial plan, the preparation of the marketing plan, market research, etc. AI helps to streamline processes, automate administrative and operational tasks, allowing entrepreneurs to focus on strategic decisions. Validating ideas also helps: AI tools can analyse large volumes of data to identify market trends, consumer behaviours and business opportunities. In phase 3 of basic incubation, AI can help startups prepare more accurate financial presentations and analyses, facilitate obtaining funding from investors and scale more efficiently, automate the analysis of data and market trends and is useful for tracking the progress and success of startups. In phase 4, emerging technologies are useful for internationalization, generating contract and agreement models, drawing up the internationalization plan, analysing data and KPIs performance, exploring new markets, developing innovative products and improving existing ones, increasing their competitiveness in the market. Overall, these technologies make it possible to reduce costs and speed up the achievement of objectives at each phase [179].

 

2- Hypothesis 1 (diffusion of entrepreneurship) was rejected without a detailed explanation as to why it had no significant impact on graduation rates. Investigate why hypothesis 1 was rejected, considering contextual variables or limitations in the data found.

Thanks for the suggestion, you are right, it has not been explained because it does not have a significant impact on the results. We believe that it is now clearer. In addition, it has been reinforced in other parts of the article. The rejection of hypothesis 1 has been explained

Three of the four proposed hypotheses that linked startup incubation phases in Spain with graduation rates were accepted. Surprisingly, Hypothesis 1 was rejected (positive effect of Spreading on the Graduation rate), although the literature helped us understand this result. According to [93], the Spreading entrepreneur (Spread) phase had a strong positive effect on pre-incubation [43], [63], basic incubation [43],  [117], [118] and advanced incubation phases [119], [120], [72], [116]. In this sense, business incubators in Spain were mostly of small and very small size, reduced number of technicians, generalist, public in nature, and they had limited accommodation capacity. These factors strongly restrict the access of startups to BIs; Therefore, the spreading entrepreneurship is a key phase and determines the incubation programs success. Once the entrepreneurship advances in the incubation, other phases were the most relevant for the success of the entrepreneurship outside the incubator.

3- Explain in more detail the graphs and tables, highlighting additional insights that can be extracted.

Each table and figure had been clarified and revised, and designations standardized to improve clarity. Its explanation has been improved. Thank you for your suggestions.

4- Add specific recommendations for incubator managers on how to implement basic improvements in the findings.

6- The limitations of Spanish incubators are mentioned, but suggestions for overcoming them are lacking.

Your suggestions are very appropriate. From them we have built a guide of good practices, proposals for actions, and actions to improve the sustainability of the use of emerging technologies. All of this is focused on responding to these concerns. Thank you, we believe that this helps to improve the discussion.

 

5- Although the article cites several sources, the review could be expanded to include international perspectives or more recent studies on incubators.

The introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and international perspectives of more recent studies on incubators. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified.

We also find socioeconomic factors that differentiate the success rate between countries and types of incubators. In Pakistan, the National Incubation Center (NIC) in Lahore provides a comprehensive ecosystem for entrepreneurs, but challenges such as a lack of networks and financial support affect the experiences of female incubated graduates [83]. In China, the effectiveness of tech business incubators (TBIs) is highly dependent on the socioeconomic context of the city, with first-tier cities benefiting more from technical support and mentorship, which positively influences graduation performance [84]. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the importance of local context in assessing success is emphasized [85] . In Germany, data on the long-term performance of graduating companies from incubators indicate that graduation does not necessarily equate to sustained growth, which casts doubt on the hypothesis that incubation leads to long-term success [86] . Performance indicators used in Europe, such as the number of graduated companies, highlight the role of incubators in fostering entrepreneurship, but also point to the variability of success depending on services and sponsorship [87]. The PROMETHEE method applied in Germany highlighted the complexity of assessing incubator efficacy and suggests that graduation rates should be combined with other performance metrics [88]. In U.S.A., incubators significantly influence the success of startups through funding and mentorship [89]. The survival analysis of technology-based companies in Brazil indicated that while graduation is a milestone, the risk of failure after graduation remains high, highlighting the need for continued support beyond incubation [90]. Overall, while graduation rates are a useful indicator, they should be contextualized based on broader performance indicators and local conditions to accurately assess the success of business incubators [91], [92].

 

7- Propose future lines of research that investigate how incubators can adopt more effective internationalization and sustainability strategies.

Improvement strategies have been incorporated into the challenges and guide.

In addition, limitations and future lines of research have also been incorporated.

Among the main limitations of the study, the following ones can be highlighted: a) The sample is sufficient and broad but should be increased with a larger size of BI, privates, other socioeconomic contexts, which would allow the results to be extended to other contexts. b) The graduation rate was evaluated in the short term after its implementation in the market. c) The analysis of moderating variables that could be included in the study is missing, d) We have information provided by the incubators that could be expanded with direct information from the startups; both the successful ones and those that failed.

The inclusion of each challenge in incubation programs and the evaluation of its impact on the graduation rate could be a line of future research, with great interest for the academy and for the effective development of entrepreneurship. Besides, in subsequent studies, it is recommended to delve into the success of startups in the long term and their viability. It would be of great interest to have the information of the entrepreneurs housed in the business incubators.

 

Thank you very much for your comments. We have carried out a thorough review of the manuscript and have taken into account point by point the recommendations that you have suggested to us. We believe that we have understood them, and we value them very positively. Thank you. We think that it has served to substantially improve the manuscript and right now it is more suitable for its publication.

Thank you very much, The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The authors attempt to find the Relationship between startup incubation stages and the graduation rate of incubators in Spain by structural equation models. They used a data of 88 incubators and 42 items to identify how startup incubators phases positively relate  to incubators results using a structural equation model.

Strengths:

1. The authors use a nation wide data for their analysis.

Weaknesses:

1. The four hypotheses were not well developed therefore they lack conviction.

2. The objective and the application of the research is unclear

3. The result of the research is obvious.

Recommendations:

1.  The hypotheses lack conviction

The authors failed to build the argument that lead to their hypothesis. The argument leading the hypothesis lack rigor and does not convince. After all the hypothesis are obvious. Stages of a startup should normally have a correlation with the end result. Not clear why that needed to be investigated again.

2. The stages of start up naturally lead to the graduation stage. Actually the graduation stage is part of the incubation, only that is one of the last stages. The relationship needs not investigation.

3. Hoping that the results will explain further the use of the findings of the research but to no avail.

  4. Theoretically, there is a correlation between the stages of startup and its final stage is strongly positive? I guess the relationship that needed to the investigated is the effect of startup on career sustainability or economic growth; where the causal relationship between the stages and the graduation should be evaluated in terms of its effect of an economic indicator.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

The authors appreciate your review as it has allowed us to delve deeper into the aspects indicated, clarify the manuscript and improve it. Thank you so much

The introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified.

The methodology has been expanded and clarified. Figures and tables have been improved. Likewise, the discussion has been reinforced by incorporating a guide to good practices.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The authors attempt to find the Relationship between startup incubation stages and the graduation rate of incubators in Spain by structural equation models. They used a data of 88 incubators and 42 items to identify how startup incubators phases positively relate  to incubators results using a structural equation model. 

Strengths:

1. The authors use a nation wide data for their analysis.

Weaknesses:

1. The four hypotheses were not well developed therefore they lack conviction. 

The introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified

the hypotheses have been reinforced with a contextual framework and moved to the first part of the manuscript

 

2. The objective and the application of the research is unclear

The objective of the work has been clarified and completed.

[93] Quantified the relationships between the different phases of the business incubation process. The results obtained showed that the “entrepreneurship diffusion” phase had a significant and strongly positive influence on pre-incubation, basic incubation and advanced incubation. Although the impact of each phase on the success of the ventures was not evaluated. Therefore, deepening the knowledge of the impact of the incubation phases on the results of the business incubators to evaluate the effectiveness of the incubation programs developed is the main interest of this work. The objective of this research was the proposal of a model that quantitatively relates the different incubation phases (Spreading, Pre-incubation, Basic incubation and Advance incubation) and the success of the startup incubators (Graduation) in Spain using structural equation modelling (SEM).

The relevance of our study lies in the proposal and validation of an empirical SEM model to know the impact of each incubation phase on the startup’s success and consequently the usefulness of the programs developed by business incubators in Spain. Besides the knowledge of the model per se, the results have great value for Business incubators managers to focus their actions to increase the success rate. Given the heterogeneity of Spanish business incubators and the wide sampling range, the model could be extended to other BIs with similar contexts that behave within the sample range.

 

3. The result of the research is obvious.

The results and discussion have been reviewed, reinforcing the novelty and interest of the article. We believe that quantifying the relationship between the different phases of incubation and the graduation rate of companies is novel and can contribute significantly to valorizing the role of business incubators and helping decision-making.

 

Recommendations:

1. The hypotheses lack conviction

The authors failed to build the argument that lead to their hypothesis. The argument leading the hypothesis lack rigor and does not convince. After all the hypothesis are obvious. Stages of a startup should normally have a correlation with the end result. Not clear why that needed to be investigated again.

1. The hypothesis lacks conviction

A theoretical framework has been built to support the hypotheses. What is stated "The stages of a startup should normally have a correlation with the final result." is true, but we try to demonstrate it empirically and in addition to showing the existence or not of correlation, we try to quantify the effect of each incubation phase on the results with a robust methodology.

We have clarified each construct and why it is of interest to academia and business incubator managers. In addition, we have built a guide of good practices with actions in each phase, actions on sustainability and the role of emerging technologies in each phase.

We believe that the manuscript has been substantially improved

 

 

2. The stages of start up naturally lead to the graduation stage. Actually, the graduation stage is part of the incubation, only that is one of the last stages. The relationship needs not investigation.

What you say is true. However, our hypothesis is that obviously the incubation phases should lead to the graduation of the start-ups, but we do not know "How much" each phase contributes, "nor the form of the relationship" (non-linear relationship). Both aspects are novel and very useful, and we believe that they justify the work.

The graduation rate was used as a response variable in the model (Figure 1). This construct incorporated nine observed variables. In this research, for a startup to be considered graduated, three conditions were established: that they had overcome the incubation phases in the BI [96]; that they had gone through the critical period called “the valley of death” [97], [98], and finally that they were “live ventures”, that is, with sufficient economic activity outside the BI in the short term [99], [100]. Generally, these were ventures with more than four years of seniority in the BI. Based on the theoretical framework, four hypotheses were established.

 

3. Hoping that the results will explain further the use of the findings of the research but to no avail.

The discussion has been reinforced in depth. The discussion has been strengthened in depth. The figure and presentation of results have been improved, and practice guides have been incorporated for each of the phases, actions, their relationship to improving sustainability and the use of emerging technologies. We believe that this is of great interest.

 

4. Theoretically, there is a correlation between the stages of startup and its final stage is strongly positive. I guess the relationship that needed to the investigated is the effect of startup on career sustainability or economic growth; where the causal relationship between the stages and the graduation should be evaluated in terms of its effect of an economic indicator.

What you indicate is totally correct. Theoretically, there is a correlation between the stages of startup and its final stage is strongly positive. We tried to verify it empirically and evaluated its effect as an economic indicator of the effectiveness of the programs developed in business incubators. That is the objective of the work.

 

Thank you very much for your comments. We have carried out a thorough review of the manuscript and have taken into account point by point the recommendations that you have suggested to us. We believe that we have understood them, and we value them very positively. Thank you. We think that it has served to substantially improve the manuscript and right now it is more suitable for its publication.

Thank you very much, The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper could really use a stronger theoretical foundation that links the different stages of incubation to graduation rates. While it throws out various hypotheses, it doesn't fully flesh out the theoretical mechanisms explaining why and how each incubation stage impacts graduation outcomes.

 

In the literature review, instead of just summarizing previous studies, it might be better to synthesize existing theories about business incubation effectiveness. A clearer theoretical model showing the relationships between variables and the underlying mechanisms would definitely boost the paper's contribution.

 

Regarding the SEM analysis, more detailed reporting of model diagnostics and fit indices would be helpful. Some metrics are in Table 4, but the paper should also include complete measurement model results and factor loadings and assessment of potential common method bias etc.

 

The discussion of results needs stronger theoretical interpretation explaining WHY the relationships were found and what mechanisms drive them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 5

The authors appreciate your review as it has allowed us to delve deeper into the aspects indicated, clarify the manuscript and improve it. Thank you so much

The introduction has been strengthened, justifying it both in terms of the dimensions of sustainability and the contribution to sustainability from the SDGs. A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. Likewise, the objective of the research work has been clarified.

The methodology has been expanded and clarified. Figures and tables have been improved. Likewise, the discussion has been reinforced by incorporating a guide to good practices.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper could really use a stronger theoretical foundation that links the different stages of incubation to graduation rates. While it throws out various hypotheses, it doesn't fully flesh out the theoretical mechanisms explaining why and how each incubation stage impacts graduation outcomes.

A table has been incorporated in this part with the literature review for each phase of the incubation, and the success rate, both in the methodological aspects and in the particularities of each country according to its socioeconomic context. A theoretical framework has been developed that leads to hypotheses and why and how each incubation stage impacts graduation outcomes.

 

In the literature review, instead of just summarizing previous studies, it might be better to synthesize existing theories about business incubation effectiveness. A clearer theoretical model showing the relationships between variables and the underlying mechanisms would definitely boost the paper's contribution.

The review has incorporated: Relationship between business incubators and sustainability, relationship with the SDGs, bibliography of international cases and a table summarizing the relationship of each phase with the success of business incubators. Reformulation of the hypotheses and their transfer to the first part of the work. We believe that the theoretical framework has been strengthened and the interest of the work is justified.

 

Regarding the SEM analysis, more detailed reporting of model diagnostics and fit indices would be helpful. Some metrics are in Table 4, but the paper should also include complete measurement model results and factor loadings and assessment of potential common method bias etc.

According to your suggestion, the factor loading matrix has been incorporated in the supplementary material. I have not added the alphas of each variable with its factor in Figure 2 because it would make it difficult to read. Table S2. Combined loadings and cross-loadings.

Regarding common method bias, we evaluated the variance inflation factors (VIFs) of the constructs, which are:

Spread: 2.435    Pre_Inc: 2.047   Incub: 1.658      Adv_Inc: 1.658

Following Kock (2015), if all VIFs resulting from a collinearity test are lower than 3.3, as is the case here, the model can be considered free of common method bias (2015).

 

The discussion of results needs stronger theoretical interpretation explaining WHY the relationships were found and what mechanisms drive them.

The discussion and the results have been reinforced. The reasons why Hypothesis 1 was rejected and the implications of the research have been detailed. A table with a guide to good practices was also included.

 

Thank you very much for your comments. We have carried out a thorough review of the manuscript and have taken into account point by point the recommendations that you have suggested to us. We believe that we have understood them, and we value them very positively. Thank you. We think that it has served to substantially improve the manuscript and right now it is more suitable for its publication.

Thank you very much, The authors

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made the recommended adjustments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version of the manuscript has incorporated the suggestions in a comprehensive and structured manner. The changes have significantly improved the clarity, depth and practical applicability of the work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I this the paper acceptable in its current status

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the revised paper, I believe the authors have addressed most but not all of my key concerns. 

 

1. Theoretical Foundation

The authors have expanded their theoretical framework, particularly in explaining the rationale behind each hypothesis (pp. 8-10).

 

2. Literature Review

The authors have added more synthesis, particularly in Table 1 (p. 7) which summarizes literature by incubation phase.  As a result, the theoretical framework now better integrates previous research, especially in explaining each hypothesis.

 

3. SEM Analysis Reporting

Significantly improved: 

  - Added detailed model fit indices in Table 5 (p. 12)

  - Included complete diagnostics (APC, ARS, AARS, AVIF, etc.)

  - Added factor loadings in supplementary materials (Table S2)

 

Addressed: Common method bias concerns through multiple fit indices

 

4. Theoretical Interpretation of Results

The discussion section (pp. 14-19) now provides more theoretical explanations for findings. Added meaningful interpretation of the non-linear relationships found (pp. 13-14)

 

Still could be strengthened: The mechanisms driving the strong effect of advanced incubation (β=0.543) could be better explained theoretically

 

Overall, I believe the authors have made substantial improvements addressing my concerns, particularly in the methodological rigor and reporting of results. The theoretical foundation, while improved, could still be strengthened further, but this may be a limitation inherent to the empirical nature of the study.