Post-Pandemic Entrepreneurship and the Role of Delivery Services in Fostering Innovative Business Growth: Evidence from La Libertad, Peru

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Number: 

 

 

Dear authors, I am delighted to have the opportunity to read your research paper. Overall, the topic of this research represents a good fit with our vision for the Sustainability Journal.

 

You seem to have a solid foundation on which to build your work, and I encourage you to continue to work on the ideas in your paper as they contain the seeds for a relevant contribution.

 

As it currently stands, your article needs improvement to be considered for publication.

Abstract

Your abstract has been well structured, just I would suggest that authors add more contributions in the last part and also remove the detailed information about the analysis.

Introduction:

The introduction is, in many ways, the most crucial part of a manuscript. Generally, the introduction should contain 1. General topic - why it is important and what is the problem, 2. Short reporting over the extant knowledge; 3. Identification of the main gap (s); 4. Aim of the study - RQs - in terms of how the paper wants to fill the gap(s) (short); 5. Remainder.

 

The gap does not present well I would suggest authors to re-write contribution at the end of introduction as well. I would suggest authors to for example explain how your finding contribute to the literature in this vein.

Please have a look to the structure of the paper below:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.022

I would suggest authors to firstly write the research questions and then writ-up about the aim of study. Also, I would suggest to add one or two paragraphs to explain about the main contribution of your study. Indeed, it is crucial to clarify what new insights this study provides beyond existing literature. How does this study advance our understanding of the intersection between exited concepts. Please summarize this part as well.

 

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

 

I could not find this part in your paper. The LR section would benefit from a more focused review that clearly identifies gaps in the literature that this study seeks to fill. All references have been cited here and should be mentioned in the discussion and theoretical implications as well.

 

3. Method

This part is not structured well. Please add more and clear information about the data collection. How you reach to these variables? The case study? Maybe conclude all of them in one table. If there is HYP, it needs to consider one part and explain it separately.

 

Discussion:

Your paper's discussion (findings) needs to be enhanced as well.  Once you have reframed your arguments, the discussion section is more comprehensively developed and links back to your initial research questions and a clear statement of proposed contributions.

Although the paper is interesting, to link theory with practice, it needs to identify how the results can be helpful and briefly present a discussion.

Regarding this, I suggest the authors, in this section, try to answer and explain more about all your RQs, and also about the model that you present.

Implications for Research:

Since this part is one of the important parts of your paper, I would suggest that you complete this part more. I would suggest, in the theoretical implication part, that you explain how your findings respond to the calls you mentioned.

For example, you could be mentioned like this:

 The current research findings respond to ….. calls from the literature on ….. The first is a research call ….then regarding this your results show that ….(HOW ) by using the …..

Please consider that the discussion NEEDS references (often from the literature background)

5. Implications and limitations

The main points you could consider for this part could be as follows:

 

What should we, as readers, take away regarding your study?  What are the key theoretical contributions that are gained? How can these findings contribute to the literature stream associated with, or to the broader scholarly understanding in general?  What do we know about this literature stream now that we have read your study?  What future research should be conducted within this literature stream that can be extended based on your study?

 

As I mentioned before, please discuss more of the theoretical implications of your literature. Moreover, please improve the practical implications part.

 

The limitation part also needs to be improved.

 

Thank you again for letting me see your work, and best of luck to you with your endeavors.  Despite the outcome, I hope that the comments will be helpful to you as you continue to work on the ideas in this paper.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Your abstract has been well structured, just I would suggest that authors add more contributions in the last part and also remove the detailed information about the analysis.

Response 1: The abstract was modified to comply with the comment made. The changes can be seen in the submitted manuscript.

Comments 2: The gap does not present well I would suggest

Response 2: This part of the introduction was modified by clearly adding the gap to be filled by the research.

Comments 3:  Authors to re-write contribution at the end of introduction as well. I would suggest authors to for example explain how your finding contribute to the literature in this vein.

Response 3: The requested contribution has been added.

Comments 4: Literature Revie and Hipothesis. I could not find this part in your paper. The LR section would benefit from a more focused review that clearly identifies gaps in the literature that this study seeks to fill. All references have been cited here and should be mentioned in the discussion and theoretical implications as well.

Response 4: The template provided by mdpi for the presentation of the article does not consider this section in a separate section, but rather it should be included in the Introduction section as it has been worked on.

Comments 5: This part is not structured well. Please add more and clear information about the data collection. How you reach to these variables? The case study? Maybe conclude all of them in one table. If there is HYP, it needs to consider one part and explain it separately.

Response 5: This section has been better structured, explaining data collection and variables. The hypotheses are explained in the previous section.

Comments 6: Your paper's discussion (findings) needs to be enhanced as well. 

Response 6: The discussion was improved by linking theoretical elements and references that were missing. Responding to research questions and indicating the contributions of the theoretical and practical article.

Comments 7: 

The main points you could consider for this part could be as follows:

What should we, as readers, take away regarding your study?  What are the key theoretical contributions that are gained? How can these findings contribute to the literature stream associated with, or to the broader scholarly understanding in general?  What do we know about this literature stream now that we have read your study?  What future research should be conducted within this literature stream that can be extended based on your study?

 

Response 7: The section was improved by answering the questions suggested by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript "Post-Pandemic Entrepreneurship and the Role of Delivery Services in Fostering Innovative Business Growth: Evidence from La Libertad, Peru." The study addresses a highly relevant and timely topic, exploring the mechanisms that drive micro-enterprise growth in a critical post-pandemic context. 

While the data collection is timely and the use of PLS-SEM is methodologically advanced, the manuscript suffers from significant structural deficiencies and a lack of theoretical grounding that must be addressed before publication.

Please see below my comments on this manuscript.

Introduction

The Introduction section is fragmented and lacks the necessary structure for an empirical paper. As it stands, it reads as a mixture of introductory context, literature, including justification of hypotheses.

The most critical missing element is the clear articulation of the research gap. The authors fail to explicitly state what is currently unknown in the existing literature and how their study contributes to bridging that gap. This must be the central point of the Introduction.

The hypotheses should not be introduced in this section. They must be developed at the conclusion of the Literature Review section, where the underlying theory for each proposed relationship is justified.

Literature Review

This section, which is one of the most important sections in a scientific paper, is missing.

A comprehensive, dedicated Literature Review section must be created. This section should define, discuss, and synthesize the key concepts investigated, including Delivery Adoption, Business Model Innovation (BMI), Digital Capabilities, and Business Performance. 

In addition, in this section the authors must theoretically justify all the proposed hypotheses. Instead of stating that a relationship exists (e.g., "Delivery adoption is hypothesized to affect BMI"), the authors must draw upon established theory (e.g., Resource-Based View, Dynamic Capabilities Theory) to explain the mechanism and direction of the expected effects, fully supporting the structural model.

Method

The authors must provide a clear justification for selecting PLS-SEM over covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM). This rationale should be based on methodological guidelines (e.g., focus on prediction or specific sample size characteristics).

The study is based on a cross-sectional survey. The authors must explicitly mention in the Limitations section that this methodology precludes definitive causal inference. The language used throughout the Results and Discussion sections must be carefully adjusted to reflect association rather than direct causality.

Results and Discussion

The discussion must explicitly connect the findings to sustainability. How does fostering micro-enterprise growth through delivery services contribute to the long-term resilience, poverty reduction, and formalization of the economy in La Libertad? 

The Abstract section mentions the moderating effect of the Institutional Environment. This discussion needs to be robustly developed, explaining the theoretical implications of why the institutional context of Peru strengthens or weakens the observed relationships.

Conclusion

The Conclusion should be concise, summarizing the main empirical findings and their theoretical and managerial implications.

The section presenting proposals for future research must be separated. These suggestions belong, along with the acknowledgement of the cross-sectional limitation, in the section Limitations and Future Research Directions.

Author Response

Comments 1: The Introduction section is fragmented and lacks the necessary structure for an empirical paper. As it stands, it reads as a mixture of introductory context, literature, including justification of hypotheses.

Response 1: The introduction was separated from the literature review and hypotheses based on the theoretical foundations that allowed them to be proposed.

Comments 2: The most critical missing element is the clear articulation of the research gap. The authors fail to explicitly state what is currently unknown in the existing literature and how their study contributes to bridging that gap. This must be the central point of the Introduction.

Response 2: This part of the introduction was modified by clearly adding the gap to be filled by the research.

Comments 3: The hypotheses should not be introduced in this section. They must be developed at the conclusion of the Literature Review section, where the underlying theory for each proposed relationship is justified.

Response 3: The hypotheses were placed in the Literature Review section.

Comments 4: The most critical missing element is the clear articulation of the research gap. The authors fail to explicitly state what is currently unknown in the existing literature and how their study contributes to bridging that gap. This must be the central point of the Introduction.

Response 4: This part of the introduction was modified by clearly adding the gap to be filled by the research.

Comments 5: Literature Review

This section, which is one of the most important sections in a scientific paper, is missing.

A comprehensive, dedicated Literature Review section must be created. This section should define, discuss, and synthesize the key concepts investigated, including Delivery Adoption, Business Model Innovation (BMI), Digital Capabilities, and Business Performance. 

In addition, in this section the authors must theoretically justify all the proposed hypotheses. Instead of stating that a relationship exists (e.g., "Delivery adoption is hypothesized to affect BMI"), the authors must draw upon established theory (e.g., Resource-Based View, Dynamic Capabilities Theory) to explain the mechanism and direction of the expected effects, fully supporting the structural model.

Response 5: The Literature Review section was added, with theoretical bases that support the hypothesis.

Comments 6:  Method

The authors must provide a clear justification for selecting PLS-SEM over covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM). This rationale should be based on methodological guidelines (e.g., focus on prediction or specific sample size characteristics).

Response 6: The justification for choosing the PLS-SEM method over covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) was added.

Comments 7: The study is based on a cross-sectional survey. The authors must explicitly mention in the Limitations section that this methodology precludes definitive causal inference

Response 7:  The limitation observed was explicitly added.

Comments 8: The language used throughout the Results and Discussion sections must be carefully adjusted to reflect association rather than direct causality.

Response 8: The term “effect” was modified in the results and discussion section to reflect associations rather than direct causality.

Comments 9:  Results and Discussion

The discussion must explicitly connect the findings to sustainability. How does fostering micro-enterprise growth through delivery services contribute to the long-term resilience, poverty reduction, and formalization of the economy in La Libertad?

Response 9: The requested aspects of sustainability were added to the discussion.

Comments 10: The Abstract section mentions the moderating effect of the Institutional Environment. This discussion needs to be robustly developed, explaining the theoretical implications of why the institutional context of Peru strengthens or weakens the observed relationships.

Response 10: It was added to the discussion explaining the theoretical implications of why Peru's institutional context strengthens or weakens the observed relationships.

Comments 11: The Conclusion should be concise, summarizing the main empirical findings and their theoretical and managerial implications.

Response 11: The Conclusion section was modified to comply with the request.

Comments 12: The section presenting proposals for future research must be separated. These suggestions belong, along with the acknowledgement of the cross-sectional limitation, in the section Limitations and Future Research Directions.

Response 12: The requested item was placed in a separate section along with the limitation of the design used.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research successfully establishes a foundation of statistically validated relationships, creating a model that is both clear and testable. The authors correctly employed the PLS-SEM methodology to confirm their central hypotheses: that delivery platform adoption influences business growth, and this effect is significantly mediated by Business Model Innovation (BMI) and positively moderated by the institutional environment. These findings offer concrete, justifiable policy recommendations aimed at bolstering the digitalization of microenterprises as a mechanism for economic growth.

However, the conclusions suffer from two critical flaws that undermine the practical strength of these validated results. Firstly, a major conceptual error occurs in the operationalization of variables. Treating the simple adoption of a third-party delivery platform as a primary driver of strategic BMI overestimates the innovative character of the activity. For microenterprises, platform integration is often a matter of operational necessity to stay competitive, not a fundamental strategic change, thus weakening the interpretation of "innovation" within the model.

Secondly, the conclusions contain a significant interpretive ambiguity regarding the role of institutions. While the analysis correctly validates that the entrepreneurs' subjective perception of institutional support matters, the authors erroneously translate this finding into recommendations about the objective quality of the institutions themselves. This conflation of opinion (perception) with fact (objective quality) critically diminishes the external validity of the public policy guidance.

Ultimately, while the statistical analysis is robust, the study lacks a necessary critical perspective. By neglecting to discuss the negative realities of the gig economy—such as its impact on profit margins due to high platform fees and the creation of long-term dependence—the article presents an incomplete and overly optimistic picture. The conclusions, though statistically sound in their internal logic, are thus limited in their practical applicability due to these fundamental conceptual and methodological shortcomings.

Author Response

Comments 1: The conclusions suffer from two critical flaws that undermine the practical strength of these validated results. Firstly, a major conceptual error occurs in the operationalization of variables. Treating the simple adoption of a third-party delivery platform as a primary driver of strategic BMI overestimates the innovative character of the activity. For microenterprises, platform integration is often a matter of operational necessity to stay competitive, not a fundamental strategic change, thus weakening the interpretation of "innovation" within the model.

Response 1: Done. The variable was reconceptualized, differentiating reactive adoption from genuine BMI, with support from critical literature on platform dependency (see introduction, literature review, and discussion). 

Comments 2: The conclusions contain a significant interpretive ambiguity regarding the role of institutions. While the analysis correctly validates that the entrepreneurs' subjective perception of institutional support matters, the authors erroneously translate this finding into recommendations about the objective quality of the institutions themselves. This conflation of opinion (perception) with fact (objective quality) critically diminishes the external validity of the public policy guidance.

Response 2: Done. The conclusions have been rewritten to address the conceptual distinction between need-driven platform adoption and transformational BMI. The interpretation now reflects the critical perspective on platform dependency throughout the manuscript (see revised sections on literature, discussion, conclusions).

Comments 3: Ultimately, while the statistical analysis is robust, the study lacks a necessary critical perspective. By neglecting to discuss the negative realities of the gig economy—such as its impact on profit margins due to high platform fees and the creation of long-term dependence—the article presents an incomplete and overly optimistic picture. The conclusions, though statistically sound in their internal logic, are thus limited in their practical applicability due to these fundamental conceptual and methodological shortcomings.

Response 3: A section was added to address this observation. A section was added to address this observation. Conclusions and discussion were also modified.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been satisfactorily improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all my recommendations. I consider the paper to be publishable.