Does Gen-AI Enhance the Link Between Entrepreneurship Education and Student Innovation Behavior? Insights for Quality and Sustainable Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:
First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your work. It is very good, but I would like to make a series of recommendations that may help to improve the manuscript.
Regarding the methodology section:
The hypotheses are well formulated, but some justifications are too long, others are insufficiently critical, and possible alternative or contradictory effects are not discussed. It is therefore important to make more direct and theoretically grounded arguments. For this reason, we invite you to include brief references to studies with mixed results.
It would also be advisable to add a section on objectives that specify the hypothesis and help to understand the purposes of the research.
Regarding the sample, the causal limitation is not sufficiently discussed, details on the sampling procedure are lacking, and no explanation is given as to why PLS-SEM is preferable to CB-SEM in theoretical terms. Therefore, a justification for all of the above is recommended, especially a theoretical rationale for the use of PLS-SEM.
Regarding the measurement of variables, there is no explanation of whether cultural adaptation took place, nor is there any mention of whether a pretest or pilot study was conducted. The measurement of Gen-AI is functional, but it may appear instrumental rather than pedagogical. It is recommended that a justification for adaptation to the Lebanese context be provided, along with a brief discussion of the educational nature of the use of Gen-AI.

Finally, regarding the conclusions, specifically the limitations and future lines of research. Limitations are acknowledged, but defensively, without turning them into research opportunities, so it would be advisable to reformulate them, taking into account starting points for new studies and invitations to mixed or longitudinal methods.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 1

Dear authors:
First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your work. It is very good, but I would like to make a series of recommendations that may help to improve the manuscript.

Regarding the methodology section:
The hypotheses are well formulated, but some justifications are too long, others are insufficiently critical, and possible alternative or contradictory effects are not discussed. It is therefore important to make more direct and theoretically grounded arguments. For this reason, we invite you to include brief references to studies with mixed results.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work and for the constructive suggestions to strengthen the methodological rigor and theoretical clarity of the manuscript. In response to this comment, we revised the hypotheses development section to make the justifications more concise, theoretically grounded, and critically informed. Specifically, we explicitly anchored each hypothesis within a well-established theoretical framework: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) for Hypothesis 1 (Lines 211-220), Entrepreneurial Alertness Theory for Hypothesis 2(Lines 246-252), and Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) theory for Hypothesis 3 (Lines 292-297). This theoretical alignment allowed us to streamline the arguments and focus on the core explanatory mechanisms underlying each proposed relationship. Moreover, to address the reviewer’s request for greater critical depth, we incorporated references to prior empirical studies.

 

It would also be advisable to add a section on objectives that specify the hypothesis and help to understand the purposes of the research.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We would like to clarify that the objectives of the study have already been stated in the manuscript (Lines 123–127). In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have explicitly linked these objectives to the study hypotheses (H1–H3) to clarify the research's purpose and logical structure. This revision strengthens the alignment between the research objectives and the hypothesis development, thereby improving the clarity and coherence of the study’s aims

Regarding the sample, the causal limitation is not sufficiently discussed, details on the sampling procedure are lacking, and no explanation is given as to why PLS-SEM is preferable to CB-SEM in theoretical terms. Therefore, a justification for all of the above is recommended, especially a theoretical rationale for the use of PLS-SEM.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we have expanded the Research Design subsection of the Methodology (Lines 318-324) to clarify the sampling procedure and its associated limitations. We now explicitly state that a non-probability sampling method was employed. In addition, the rationale for selecting PLS-SEM using SmartPLS 4 has been further clarified in the Data Analysis Procedure subsection (Lines 339–341). Specifically, we explain that SmartPLS was preferred over covariance-based SEM techniques because it is less sensitive to violations of multivariate normality and is well-suited to relatively smaller sample sizes.

Regarding the measurement of variables, there is no explanation of whether cultural adaptation took place, nor is there any mention of whether a pretest or pilot study was conducted. The measurement of Gen-AI is functional, but it may appear instrumental rather than pedagogical. It is recommended that a justification for adaptation to the Lebanese context be provided, along with a brief discussion of the educational nature of the use of Gen-AI.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and important comment regarding measurement validity and contextual appropriateness. First, in response, we have strengthened the Measurement of Variables by clarifying that all measurement instruments were adapted from established scales and carefully reviewed for cultural relevance to the Lebanese higher-education context (Lines 348-349). Second, to address concerns about measuring Generative AI, we clarified that although the items focus on functional use, Gen-AI is conceptualized pedagogically rather than instrumentally (Lines 359-366).

 

Finally, regarding the conclusions, specifically the limitations and future lines of research. Limitations are acknowledged, but defensively, without turning them into research opportunities, so it would be advisable to reformulate them, taking into account starting points for new studies and invitations to mixed or longitudinal methods.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive suggestion. We would like to clarify that the need for longitudinal research designs is already explicitly stated in the Limitation section (Lines 552–555). In addition, in response to this comment, we have expanded the Limitations subsection by explicitly highlighting mixed-method research strategies as a promising avenue for future studies (Lines 561-565).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Does Gen-AI Enhance the Link Between Entrepreneurship Education and Student Innovation Behavior? Insights for Quality and Sustainable Higher Education

This manuscript presents a timely and relevant investigation into the interplay between entrepreneurship education (EE), entrepreneurial alertness (EA), student innovative behavior (SIB), and the moderating role of Generative AI (Gen-AI) within the context of Lebanese higher education.

Abstract & Introduction: The abstract and introduction contain convoluted sentences and unclear statements (e.g., "The impact of entrepreneurs is changing countries’ future, which cannot be ignored [1]."). The introduction jumps between global context, Lebanon-specific issues, and theoretical gaps without a smooth narrative. A major rewrite for clarity and persuasive argumentation is essential.

Logical Flow: The connection between sections is often weak. For instance, the transition from the literature review to the hypotheses, and from the results to the discussion, needs strengthening. The purpose of each paragraph should be immediately clear to the reader.

 

Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation:

Superficial Coverage: The literature review is somewhat repetitive and lacks critical synthesis. It cites relevant concepts but fails to build a compelling, gap-driven argument. The discussion of Gen-AI in education, while mentioned, needs a deeper dive into current debates (e.g., ethical use, prompt engineering skills, risks of over-reliance) rather than just listing potential benefits.

Theoretical Application: While TPB, Kirzner’s Theory, and TEL are mentioned, their application to the specific model (especially the moderating role of Gen-AI) is underdeveloped. How exactly does TEL theorize moderation? This requires clearer explanation in the hypothesis development section (H3).

Methodology:

Sample Justification: The sample includes both students (75.1%) and teachers (24.9%). This mix is problematic for testing hypotheses about student innovative behavior. Were teachers responding about their perceptions of students, or were they included as a separate group? This ambiguity must be clarified, and the analysis should justify the inclusion of both groups or be conducted on students only.

Measurement Details: While scales are cited, more detail is needed. For example, the Gen-AI scale by Duong and Vu [16] is mentioned, but what specific "use" does it measure (frequency, perceived usefulness, actual application in coursework)? This is crucial for interpreting the moderation effect.

The first and second figures have the same number; they need to be modified.

On page 11, reference 15 is repeated three times; it needs to be corrected.

Recommendations for Revision

Undergo thorough language editing to correct grammatical errors and improve fluency.

 

Restructure the introduction and literature review to build a clearer, more logical narrative that culminates in a precise statement of the research gap and hypotheses.

 

Clarify the methodological approach regarding the mixed sample, provide full details on measures, and ensure all results tables and figures are complete and clearly labeled.

Refocus the discussion and conclusion to center on the implications for quality and sustainable higher education, explicitly linking findings to SDG 4 targets.

Moderate the claims of theoretical contribution and provide more nuanced, context-specific practical recommendations.

Meticulously proofread the entire document, including references, to ensure formatting aligns with journal guidelines.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language should be reviewed by Native Speaker

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 2

Title: Does Gen-AI Enhance the Link Between Entrepreneurship Education and Student Innovation Behavior? Insights for Quality and Sustainable Higher Education

This manuscript presents a timely and relevant investigation into the interplay between entrepreneurship education (EE), entrepreneurial alertness (EA), student innovative behavior (SIB), and the moderating role of Generative AI (Gen-AI) within the context of Lebanese higher education.

Abstract & Introduction: The abstract and introduction contain convoluted sentences and unclear statements (e.g., "The impact of entrepreneurs is changing countries’ future, which cannot be ignored [1]. The introduction jumps between global context, Lebanon-specific issues, and theoretical gaps without a smooth narrative. A major rewrite for clarity and persuasive argumentation is essential.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we have revised the Abstract and Introduction as much as possible to improve clarity and readability. In particular, the sentence highlighted by the reviewer has been rephrased and clarified in Lines 43–45 to address the concern regarding unclear wording. Moreover, we made some revisions to these sections; however, since we had already rephrased them, we avoided extensive revisions to prevent potential textual similarity issues.

 

Logical Flow: The connection between sections is often weak. For instance, the transition from the literature review to the hypotheses, and from the results to the discussion, needs strengthening. The purpose of each paragraph should be immediately clear to the reader.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have strengthened the transitions between key sections to ensure greater coherence and clarity. Specifically, in the Literature Review, we revised the transition from the literature to the hypotheses by explicitly grounding each hypothesis in its underlying theoretical framework: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) for Hypothesis 1 (Lines 211–220), Entrepreneurial Alertness Theory for Hypothesis 2 (Lines 246–252), and Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) theory for Hypothesis 3 (Lines 292–297). Regarding the transition from the Results to the Discussion, we structured the Discussion section to explicitly address each hypothesis in turn (Lines 456-490). We first discuss the impact of entrepreneurship education on student innovative behavior, followed by a focused discussion of the mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. We then interpret the interaction effect of Generative AI within the Lebanese context.

 

 

Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation:

Superficial Coverage: The literature review is somewhat repetitive and lacks critical synthesis. It cites relevant concepts but fails to build a compelling, gap-driven argument. The discussion of Gen-AI in education, while mentioned, needs a deeper dive into current debates (e.g., ethical use, prompt engineering skills, risks of over-reliance) rather than just listing potential benefits.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment regarding the depth and critical synthesis of the literature review, particularly in relation to the discussion of Generative AI in education.In response, we have strengthened the Literature Review section by explicitly incorporating current critical debates on Generative AI, rather than focusing solely on its potential benefits. Specifically, we added a paragraph in Lines 286–291 that addresses the systemic risks associated with Gen-AI use, including concerns about diminished human creativity, reduced critical thinking, and over-reliance on AI-enhanced processes.

 

Theoretical Application: While TPB, Kirzner’s Theory, and TEL are mentioned, their application to the specific model (especially the moderating role of Gen-AI) is underdeveloped. How exactly does TEL theorize moderation? This requires clearer explanation in the hypothesis development section (H3).

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful comment regarding the theoretical application of TPB, Kirzner’s Theory, and Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL), particularly in relation to the moderating role of Generative AI. We would like to clarify that the application of each theoretical framework to the proposed model has already been explicitly addressed in the hypothesis development section. In particular, the moderating role of Generative AI is theoretically grounded in Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) theory and is explained in detail in Lines 292–297.

 

Methodology:

Sample Justification: The sample includes both students (75.1%) and teachers (24.9%). This mix is problematic for testing hypotheses about student innovative behavior. Were teachers responding about their perceptions of students, or were they included as a separate group? This ambiguity must be clarified, and the analysis should either justify the inclusion of both groups or be conducted only on students.

 

We thank the reviewer for raising this important point regarding the composition of the study sample. We would like to clarify that both students and teachers were included as respondents in this study, and both groups provided their perceptions regarding the role of entrepreneurship education in shaping students’ innovative behavior. As already clarified in the Abstract (Lines 31-32) and the Research Design section (Lines 325-327), teachers did not respond as a separate analytical group; rather, their responses reflect educational and instructional perspectives on students’ innovative behavior within entrepreneurship education contexts.

 

Measurement Details: While scales are cited, more detail is needed. For example, the Gen-AI scale by Duong and Vu [16] is mentioned, but what specific "use" does it measure (frequency, perceived usefulness, actual application in coursework)? This is crucial for interpreting the moderation effect.

We thank the reviewer for this important clarification request regarding the measurement of Generative AI. In response, we have clarified in the Measurement section (Lines 359-362) that although the Gen-AI items emphasize functional aspects, the construct is conceptualized pedagogically rather than instrumentally.

 

The first and second figures have the same number; they need to be modified.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. The figure numbering has been corrected, and the first and second figures now have sequential numbers in the revised manuscript.(Lines 149 &443)

On page 11, reference 15 is repeated three times; it needs to be corrected.

We thank the reviewer for noting this issue. The repeated citation of Reference 15 has been corrected in the revised manuscript (Line 476), and the duplication has been removed.

Recommendations for Revision

Undergo thorough language editing to correct grammatical errors and improve fluency.

We thank the reviewer for this recommendation. The manuscript has undergone thorough language editing to correct grammatical errors, improve fluency, and enhance overall readability throughout the text

Restructure the introduction and literature review to build a clearer, more logical narrative that culminates in a precise statement of the research gap and hypotheses.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable recommendation. In response, we have restructured the Introduction and Literature Review to establish a clearer and more logical narrative flow.

 Clarify the methodological approach regarding the mixed sample, provide full details on measures, and ensure all results tables and figures are complete and clearly labeled.

We thank the reviewer for this comprehensive and constructive comment. In response, we have taken several steps to improve methodological clarity and presentation. First, we have clarified the methodological approach to the mixed sample by explicitly explaining the rationale for including both students and teachers (Lines 325-327) and by specifying that both groups reported their perceptions of the role of entrepreneurship education in shaping students’ innovative behavior. Second, we have expanded the description of all measurement instruments, providing clearer details on construct conceptualization, scale sources, and what each measure captures, particularly for the Generative AI variable. Finally, we carefully reviewed all results tables and figures to ensure they are complete, correctly numbered, and clearly labeled, with consistent terminology and alignment with the text.

Refocus the discussion and conclusion to center on the implications for quality and sustainable higher education, explicitly linking findings to SDG 4 targets.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. In response, we have refocused both the Discussion and Conclusion sections to more explicitly emphasize the implications of our findings for quality and sustainable higher education.  Moreover, we have explicitly connected the study’s findings to SDG 4 (Quality Education) by highlighting how entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial alertness, and the pedagogically grounded use of Generative AI contribute to improving learning quality, fostering innovation skills, and supporting sustainable and future-oriented higher education systems (Lines 486-490).

Moderate the claims of theoretical contribution and provide more nuanced, context-specific practical recommendations.

We thank the reviewer for this constructive recommendation. In response, we have moderated the claims regarding the study’s theoretical contributions to ensure they are appropriately framed within the scope and context of the research. The revised text now emphasizes theoretical extension and contextual refinement of existing frameworks rather than broad generalization, particularly with respect to entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial alertness, and Technology-Enhanced Learning in a Lebanese higher-education setting. In addition, we have refined the practical recommendations (Lines 520-543) to make them more nuanced and context-specific .

 

Meticulously proofread the entire document, including references, to ensure formatting aligns with journal guidelines.

We thank the reviewer for this important recommendation. The entire manuscript has been meticulously proofread, including all references, tables, figures, and supplementary materials, to ensure grammatical accuracy, consistency, and full alignment with the journal’s formatting and stylistic guidelines.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language should be reviewed by Native Speaker

We thank the reviewer for this recommendation. The manuscript has been reviewed and edited by a native English speaker to improve language quality, clarity, fluency, and academic tone throughout the text.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reading the manuscript, I found it interesting and can add some value to the literature.

The topic of the manuscript is timely and investigates the intersection of Gen AI, enterpreurships and student behavior. 

The study from Lebanon will also add diverse results to the existing literature on the topic. 

However, I also found that some major issues are described below. 

• I found similar studies in the literature that make bit difficult to find the originality and novel contribution of the manuscript. I suggest that authors clarify what is fundamentally new. It seems that the authors may be overstating the novelty of the manuscript because I found similar studies in the literature. I suggest that authors consider narrowing the claim of contributions to contextual novelty (Lebanon), the specific role of AI, and the framing of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4).
• Theories are described well, but I found that theory integration is incomplete. As an example, I would suggest providing a paragraph detailing how TPB and TEL jointly explain the model.
• Literature review is good, but I found that it is more descriptive and is not analytical. I suggest authors consider adding a critical comparison. Also, authors need to clearly identify the research gap that they are addressing in the manuscript. 
• In the research design and methodology section, I suggest that authors provide a bit more clarification on teachers' responses. Also, consider adding a common method bias assessment. 
• In the discussion section, authors may add a critical reflection on why the effects may be strong in Lebanon. Also, I suggest that authors tone down over claming of SDG.

Author Response

Answer to reviewer 3

After carefully reading the manuscript, I found it interesting and can add some value to the literature.

The topic of the manuscript is timely and investigates the intersection of Gen AI, entrepreneurship, and student behavior. 

The study from Lebanon will also add diverse results to the existing literature on the topic. 

However, I also found that some major issues are described below. 

• I found similar studies in the literature that make bit difficult to find the originality and novel contribution of the manuscript. I suggest that authors clarify what is fundamentally new. It seems that the authors may be overstating the novelty of the manuscript because I found similar studies in the literature. I suggest that authors consider narrowing the claim of contributions to contextual novelty (Lebanon), the specific role of AI, and the framing of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4).

We thank the reviewer for this important and constructive comment. We would like to clarify that the novelty and contribution of the study have already been articulated in the Introduction (Lines 109–117), where we explain the contextual novelty of the Lebanese higher-education setting and the specific role of Generative AI within a moderated and mediated research model, rather than treating AI as a direct outcome. Moreover, in response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have clarified the contribution claims by adding an explicit explanation in Lines 117–121 that frames the study within Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education).

 

• Theories are described well, but I found that theory integration is incomplete. As an example, I would suggest providing a paragraph detailing how TPB and TEL jointly explain the model.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment regarding theory integration. In response, we have strengthened the Theoretical Background section (Lines 173-178) by adding a paragraph that explicitly explains how Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) jointly inform the research model.

• Literature review is good, but I found that it is more descriptive and is not analytical. I suggest authors consider adding a critical comparison. Also, authors need to clearly identify the research gap that they are addressing in the manuscript. 

In response, we have strengthened the analytical and critical dimension of the Literature Review by adding targeted comparative discussions rather than purely descriptive summaries. Specifically, in Lines 207–210, we introduced a critical comparison. In addition, to address the reviewer’s concern regarding the discussion of Generative AI, we added a balanced and critical perspective in Lines 286–291, acknowledging not only the creativity-enhancing potential of Gen-AI but also its systemic risks. Furthermore, the research gap is explicitly articulated in the Introduction section (Lines 85–96).

• In the research design and methodology section, I suggest that authors provide a bit more clarification on teachers' responses. Also, consider adding a common method bias assessment. 

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have clarified teachers’ responses in the Research Design section (Lines 325–327) by stating that both teachers and students provided perceptions regarding the role of entrepreneurship education in shaping students’ innovative behavior. In addition, we conducted a common method bias assessment using a full collinearity VIF approach and added the VIF table (Table 3) to the Methodology section (Lines 410-416).

 

 

• In the discussion section, authors may add a critical reflection on why the effects may be strong in Lebanon. Also, I suggest that authors tone down over claming of SDG.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we have added a context-specific reflection in the Discussion section (Lines 461–465) to explain why the observed effects may be relatively strong in the Lebanese higher-education context. In addition, we have moderated the discussion on Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) by incorporating a more cautious, balanced framing at the end of the Discussion section (Lines 486–490).

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The edits have been made, and there are no further comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language should be reviewed by Native Speaker

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable time, careful reading, and constructive feedback provided throughout the review process. We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful guidance. Moreover, we would like to confirm that the manuscript has undergone a thorough language revision, including review by a native English speaker and professional software-based language and grammar checks, to ensure clarity, fluency, and compliance with academic writing standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the authors done a great job on addressing all the comments on the 1st review report. So, the manuscript is suitable for publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this positive and encouraging assessment. We greatly appreciate the time and effort devoted to evaluating the manuscript and are pleased that the revisions have adequately addressed all comments from the first review report. We are grateful for the reviewer’s supportive feedback and for considering the manuscript suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx