Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The  respondents have been selected based on “non-probabilistic purposive sampling”.  This means that you cannot use quantitative data in your sample to say anything about the population. As it is a selective representation. This has impact for your presentation in 3.1 It is not the percentages of the outcomes in your sample that matter but it is about the insights you gathered. Furthermore you may use some key data in your sample to compare those with some data on the population. You can make this more explicit.  In line 166 you for example indicate that women represented 53% of your sample, in line 80 you indicated that 40% women were targeted, but you do not present the gender balance in the youth targeted. Comparing information on population and sample may provide some indications on whether the sample is representative for the population or that it may provide some insights based on a selective analysis. Based on the above, part of the information in 3.1 must move to section 2 to provide validation of your method.

So Figure 2 suggests that broader performing recipients have been likely to be sampled. The large percentage of higher education may also be linked to a selective sample. As higher educated may consider higher the value of research and say yes to be part of it.

I furthermore like it (as the traditional standard is) if the presentation of results is separated from discission of the results. You have mixed these up in section 3 making it not clear what the contribution of your study is and also affects the contribution of this study to the body of knowledge. Please separate.

It can, furthermore, be helpful if you introduce some key concepts you use in your analysis between the introduction and the methodology. A concept as capacity building, for example, could be better introduced in a section 2. The figures and dimensions presented in section 3 are missing context as what could have been presented in section 2.

You put know about everything in one section, which uncomprehensible for me. Please follow traditional structure in which introduction of key concepts and discussion of results are separated from presenting the results and please guide to readers in a way that at start of presenting the result you know exactly what is coming. A paper is no whodunnit with unexpected changes of plot  but its structure must contain zero surprises and there is no place for a Coocoo section that is taking hold of  2/3 of the paper.

As it is all messed up in section 3, I think a focused discussion is missing.

In the conclusion I am missing conclusions on your research method and what the limitations of these are.

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the document is interesting, but it requires some improvements, which I have highlighted for each section in my review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The topic of the manuscript: "Evaluation of public and private interventions for rural youth
entrepreneurship in agricultural territories: evidence from the Avanzar Rural Program in Peru" is interesting and deals with an important aspect related to the development of rural areas. 

Several aspects must be improved:

1. Abstract: Please review the results section; it is unclear what the article's main findings are.
2. In the introduction section, the literature gap should be highlighted, and the objectives/research questions should be added.
3. Methodology: When was the research conducted? More information about the instrument should be added, including the types of data collected and the types of questions used. How representative is the sample? Are the results relevant for the entire population?
4. Results: the Chort diagrams are looking interesting; however, in some cases, it can be difficult to follow the explanation with the diagrams. For a better understating I suggest to try using other type of graphs/tables.
5. Discussions: There should be a discussion section, to emphasize the originality of the paper and how the results can contribute to the existing literature.
6. Conclusions section: What are the theoretical implications? The managerial implications? Also, the limitations and future research directions should be added.

Good luck!

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The new version of manuscript it ok for  me.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author/s,

Thank you for the improved version of the manuscript. 

As I previously mentioned, it is not clear what the research questions were. This aspect must be clarified. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf