Building Business Resilience Through Strategic Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Culinary Micro-Enterprises in Bandung During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript demonstrates adequate structural integrity and contextualisation within the theoretical literature and extant empirical research. However, there is scope for refinement. While the theoretical framework is robust, the lack of an explicit connection between the reference theories and the empirical outcome of the study hinders the clarity of the influence of knowledge management (KMC) on the entrepreneurial strategies of micro-enterprises.

The contextualisation of the study, with a focus on culinary micro-enterprises in Bandung, is too simplistic and would require greater generalisability of the data with potential adaptation to other sectors to strengthen the impact of the research.

The literature review could be expanded to include fundamental contributions to knowledge management and technology transfer, such as the study by Battistella, De Toni and Pillon (2016), which offers a theoretical review of knowledge transfer strategies between organisations (reference: Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., & Pillon, R. (2016). Inter-organisational technology/knowledge transfer: a framework from critical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1195-1234.). Additionally, the study by Zayed, Edeh, Islam, Nitsenko and Polova (2022) examined the role of knowledge management as a resilience strategy in micro-enterprises in the post-pandemic context, providing empirical evidence that the adoption of knowledge management practices can enhance the adaptability of small businesses to crises and improve their economic sustainability (Reference: Zayed, N. M., Edeh, F. O., Islam, K. M. A., Nitsenko, V., Polova, O., & Khaietska, O. (2022). Utilization of knowledge management as business resilience strategy for microentrepreneurs in post-COVID-19 economy. Sustainability, 14(23), 15789.)

Author Response

The explanation regarding the response to the reviewer's comments is explained in full in the following word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, your paper provides a robust analysis of the impact of KMC on strategic entrepreneurship in Bandung’s culinary micro-enterprises during the COVID-19 pandemic. Your quantitative methods effectively demonstrate relationships among KM, entrepreneurial orientation, finance, marketing, and business resilience.

However, while the methodology and engagement with current scholarship are commendable, I'd suggest some enhancements in the discussion to explore the broader implications of the findings, which could elevate the paper's academic and practical impact. Here are my suggestions:

1. Consider revising sections where the flow from one argument to the next could be improved. Streamlining sentences and clarifying complex paragraphs could make the paper more accessible and easier for readers to understand.

2. You offer a solid foundation with a well-defined research question and a structured methodology, logically presenting hypotheses based on a theoretical framework and using appropriate data analysis techniques (PLS-SEM) to validate these hypotheses. However, there are areas where the linkage between the empirical evidence and the conclusions drawn could be strengthened to enhance the coherence and robustness of the arguments. Consider including a more detailed discussion on how the results specifically support each of the study’s conclusions and a deeper exploration of the implications of these findings within the broader academic discourse.

3. Expand on the implications of the findings by discussing how your research contributes to existing theories and what it adds to the current understanding of strategic entrepreneurship in crisis conditions. I'd suggest you highlight unique insights or contradictions to existing literature, which would enrich the results and academic debate.

4. In the methodology section, provide a more detailed justification for the choice of methodology and the specific analytical techniques you used. This includes elaborating on the choice of structural equation modeling and why it suits the research questions.

5. In the findings section, what are its broader implications? Consider elaborating on the practical implications of the findings for business practitioners (are there any other actors?) and policymakers. Addressing how these stakeholders can specifically use this research to improve business resilience and strategic entrepreneurship in similar contexts can be of great value.

6. While the manuscript addresses some limitations, consider expanding this section to provide a more comprehensive discussion that could enhance academic rigor. For instance, clearly stating these limitations and suggesting specific areas for future research based on your findings could help frame subsequent studies.

7. I'd suggest you review the reference section, ensuring all references are up-to-date, and consider incorporating more recent studies (no more than five years whenever possible) that may have been published since your literature review. This will reinforce the manuscript's relevancy and its authoritative stance on the subject matter.

8. If possible, I suggest you include more visualizations (e.g., charts, graphs, or models) to represent key findings or relationships visually. This can help readers quickly grasp complex data and analyses, enhancing overall engagement with the paper.

9. Consider tightly integrating the discussion section with the results section to ensure each finding is directly linked to the paper’s hypotheses and theoretical framework. Also, try to simplify complex sentences and ensure that ideas flow logically to improve readability and the ease with which readers can follow the study’s argument and conclusions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the paper is overall well-written, there are occasional instances where the phrasing or grammar might be refined for greater clarity and readability. Consider improving sentence structure, addressing any awkward phrasing, and ensuring consistency in terminology to enhance the overall clarity and professional tone of the document. 

Author Response

The explanation regarding the response to the reviewer's comments is explained in full in the following word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled "Building Business Resilience Through Strategic Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Culinary Micro-Enterprises in Bandung During the COVID-19 Pandemic" aims to explore Strategic Entrepreneurship by integrating environmental, organizational, and individual dimensions into a framework that captures opportunity-seeking and profit-seeking behaviors.

The study presents an important exploration of strategic entrepreneurship and business resilience among micro-enterprises in Indonesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. The structure is clear, and the key variables (KMC, EO, EF, EM, BR) are well-defined.

The following revisions are required:

The abstract lacks clarity in describing the study’s main contributions. The authors must clearly state how this study fills a research gap compared to existing literature on micro-enterprises in developing economies.

The introduction establishes the problem well but does not justify why culinary micro-enterprises were chosen over other sectors. The authors must add 1-2 sentences explaining why this industry is particularly relevant for studying business resilience (e.g., reliance on physical customer interactions, high pandemic impact, etc.).

In paper's literature review some concepts (e.g., Knowledge Management Capability (KMC)) are over-explained, making the section repetitive. 

Moreover, the study does not acknowledge contradictory findings in prior research. The authors must address alternative perspectives in strategic entrepreneurship (e.g., studies that found KMC does not significantly impact resilience).

The sampling method (probability sampling) needs more justification. Why was simple random sampling chosen instead of a purposive or stratified method?

The PLS-SEM method is introduced without enough explanation for non-specialist readers. Moreover, it should be explained why PLS-SEM is the best approach for this type of data.

The findings are presented but lack interpretation beyond statistical significance. The authors must expand on practical implications of the results. What do they mean for micro-enterprises in real-world settings?

Moreover, the authors must compare findings with existing literature to strengthen the validity of results.

The limitations section is present but does not discuss potential bias in data collection.

Last, many sentences are long and complex, making readability difficult. Moreover, there are grammatical errors and awkward phrasing in multiple sections that need revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many sentences are long and complex, making readability difficult. Moreover, there are grammatical errors and awkward phrasing in multiple sections that need revision.

Author Response

The explanation regarding the response to the reviewer's comments is explained in full in the following word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is written on a relevant topic. The authors analyze the opportunities and prospects for increasing business sustainability through strategic entrepreneurship. Special emphasis is placed on the specifics of entrepreneurial activity and the transformation of business models during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study examines strategic entrepreneurship by integrating environmental, organizational, and individual dimensions into a framework that encompasses behaviors aimed at finding development opportunities and generating additional profits. In particular, the research, based on the author's methods, examines the impact of knowledge management capabilities on entrepreneurial orientation, finance, marketing and business sustainability, and a number of other indicators.

Comments on the article:
1. The abstract and the introduction do not specify the purpose, objectives, hypothesis of the article, its scientific novelty.
2. Remove the abbreviations from the annotation. Place them at the first mention in the main text.
3. Transfer formulas from the "Results" section (section 4) to the methodology section.
4. There is no numbering of formulas.

Author Response

The explanation regarding the response to the reviewer's comments is explained in full in the following word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the amendments required. Thus, the paper can be published in present form.