Measuring Entrepreneurial Intentions of Students in Northwestern Croatia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I was invited to review the article entitled "Measuring Entrepreneurial Intentions of Students in the North-Western Croatia”. The aim of the paper is to explore the factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions among students in north-western Croatia, with a focus on educational background, family entrepreneurial environment, study experiences, and perceived self-efficacy.
It is with great pleasure that I accept the review and hope to be able to contribute with knowledge. I want to congratulate the authors who present a paper with an adequate structure as well as being easy to understand. I would like to indicate some aspects to improve and questions that arise (see pdf format file)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: In the abstract, specify the period of analysis. Additionally, I assume it refers to the 160 responses received rather than the total number of questionnaires distributed. See line 6: "Using a structured questionnaire distributed to 160 students."
Response 1: Thank you, we adjusted the introduction.
Comment 2: In the introduction, line 78, the reference to Postigo, Garcia-Cueto et al. (2020) is missing.
Response 2: Thank you, the missing reference was added.
Comment 3: In section 2.1, line 142, clarify how authors measured family background. In line 163, what scale was used to measure study experience and motivations was it a Likert scale or a Yes/No format? Please clarify the measures used for the independent variables.
Response 3: Explanations of all variables and measures are provided in Table 1. The measurement scales for each variable are described in greater detail in Table 2, which includes a comprehensive overview of the response options offered to respondents.
Comment 4: In section 2.1, is there a reason why control variables were not used? For example, gender, economic background, etc.
Response 4: Explained in chapter 2.1., after independent variables.
Comment 5: Section 3: Lines 276 279: The authors mention that the variables "Do you study?" and "During your studies, did you attend an entrepreneurship course?" were removed from the model. Why do they appear in the results in Tables 2 and 4? This is inconsistent with the model.
Response 5: Thank you for the remark, the variables were removed from the tables, they were left in the table model by mistake.
Comment 6: In Table 2, "What is the educational level of your mother?" appears twice.
Response 6: Thank you for the remark, there was an error in the table, we corrected it.
Comment 7: Line 322 324: The sentence contains statistical values that do not match the data in Table 3. Is the error in the sentence or the table?
Response 7: Thank you for the remark, the errors in the text were corrected. The data are now consistent in the table and in the text.
Comment 8: Section 4 Discussion: Lines 369 386: I suggest that the limitations and recommendations for future research be moved to the conclusion section.
Response 8: Thank you for the comment, we moved the limitations and recommendations to the conclusion section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article examines the entrepreneurial intentions of students in Croatia, providing insights into conditioning variables and the suggested analytical model.
The research results provide a more robust component of the paper than the theoretical section. Recommendations for enhancement:
The theoretical part requires revision to include more theoretical background information offered in the materials and methods section. A distinct theoretical framework should be established.
- Additionally, a section on the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Croatia should be included. The introduction has minimal information; nonetheless, it should elucidate the present or favourable environment for young entrepreneurs, such as startup funding, since these variables impact entrepreneurial intentions;
- we acknowledge the theoretical explanations presented for the measured variables; nonetheless, we shouldn't mix up the instrument's structure with broader theoretical issues.
- the employed instruments must be delineated with more clarity, including their dimensions and illustrative items.
- different aims are enumerated in distinct sections of the document (L 46-50, 179-80)
The participants in the research are inadequately mentioned. What educational levels, types of study, and status are presented, particularly with the inquiry into their study status?
- enhanced presentation of the suggested model(s). Should we interpret entrepreneurial self-efficacy as synonymous with entrepreneurial knowledge?
Overall, the paper has qualities; yet, it requires more care in presenting information transparently and in a well-structured way.
Author Response
Comment 1: The theoretical part requires revision to include more theoretical background information offered in the materials and methods section. A distinct theoretical framework should be established.
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We adjusted and amended the materials and methods section, especially the 2.1. section. More focus was put on the relevant research regarding economic intentions, self-efficacy and education. Also, constructs were placed in the section 2.2. Instruments
Comment 2: Additionally, a section on the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Croatia should be included. The introduction has minimal information; nonetheless, it should elucidate the present or favourable environment for young entrepreneurs, such as startup funding, since these variables impact entrepreneurial intentions;
Response 2: Thank you for the comment. The additional theoretical review of Croatian ecosystems was added in Introduction section.
Comment 3: we acknowledge the theoretical explanations presented for the measured variables; nonetheless, we shouldn't mix up the instrument's structure with broader theoretical issues.
Response 3: Thank you. The constructs, i.e. variables and corresponding measures were moved in section 2.2.
Comment 4: the employed instruments must be delineated with more clarity, including their dimensions and illustrative items.
Response 4: Thank you. The constructs were additionally explained and presented with more clarity in section 2.2.
Comment 5: different aims are enumerated in distinct sections of the document (L 46-50, 179-80)
Response 5: We have adjusted the inconsistencies in the aims.
Comment 6: The participants in the research are inadequately mentioned. What educational levels, types of study, and status are presented, particularly with the inquiry into their study status?
Response 6: This omission was corrected in chapter 2.3. Sample Characteristics and Data Analyses
Comment 7: enhanced presentation of the suggested model(s). Should we interpret entrepreneurial self-efficacy as synonymous with entrepreneurial knowledge?
Response 7: Thank you for the observation. We provided further clarification on this point in the text. In our model, we used the entrepreneurial perception of self-efficacy, operationalized as confidence in one's own knowledge, and we elaborated on this in Section 2.1 for greater clarity. The variables are defined as follows:
K: Confidence in one’s own knowledge (one dimension of self-efficacy).
L: Confidence in one’s knowledge of market needs (one dimension of self-efficacy).
M: Confidence in financing future business ventures (one dimension of self-efficacy).
Additionally, we revised the overly generalized statement equating self-efficacy with knowledge, as we acknowledge that the two concepts are distinct, as you have pointed out.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your revisions. They addressed my suggestions. Maybe even too much, mainly with regard to describing too detailed the Croatian context.
Congratulation for your work!
