Impact of Entrepreneurial Inspiration, Awareness, and Skills on University Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I appreciate your idea to investigate the issue of motives and intentions for entrepreneurship among students, especially if it is about some specifics of the region where you did the research, which justifies what you did. However, all this was done or perhaps presented here in a rather trivial way. In addition to praising the effort, many things are problematic.

First, what cannot be changed at this stage, and what immediately catches the reader's eye:

1. Although the dispersion is good, the number of respondents is not satisfactory, especially since the entire research is related to one region.

2. Hypotheses regarding the mediating influence of education are debatable, assuming that: inspiration, awareness and skills are innate. It may not be like this, but there is a lack of previous research, which positions the elements of the model in this way - the ones listed are insufficient (which can be modified).

Then what could be modified:

- The literature is, to put it mildly, poor - I can remember at least ten recent literature calls by heart; everything from literature, especially from periodicals, older than ten years, has nothing to look for in these kinds of materials, taking into account the intensity of the research on the issue. I know that the publisher's policy does not allow it, but I could list at least two of my papers, in the targeted top journals, in which the topic is treated in a more complex and scientifically based way.

- Specificities of the region - why exactly this and here? It is not stated anywhere, explained well enough and clearly, etc.

- Model not visible? This is a technical error, okay, but I think it's important to see the complete model - the one partially shown on page 5 is not complete because...

- Items of the model are not clear - not clarified at all? What is it: Ent. Inspiration 1 to 4? let's say etc. everything else.

- It's probably a mistake, but we have two Discussions (parts 3 and 4) in the work. I assume that one is the presentation, and the other is the discussion of the results.

- A part was completely missing: Methodological setting... everything is there, but it's as if it wasn't, when it has to be searched for in the text.

- Although they are clearly indicated, the hypotheses are not concluded after the statistics, but after the discussion - the methodological material is not set in an appropriate way.

- The statistics provided in the material are not detailed enough to confirm the findings and conclusions.

- The limitations of the research are clear, already mentioned, but why aren't they there at the beginning, in the abstract.

- The abstract is too long, with a lot of empty space and is not methodologically structured.

- Conclusions are given tightly.

Honestly, I would have preferred to see the motives and intentions of the medical students in this material. Scientific basis and novelty are missing here - the beginning and the end, as well as the middle. I'm sorry, I cannot accept this material as presented.

Thaks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for the research they conducted. And these are the comments on the paper:

1. The title is appropriate.

2. The keywords should include: university students and Pakistan.

3. The abstract is well-structured, clearly defining the problem, setting the research objective, explaining the methodology, and presenting key results and contributions.

- However, the data referenced, particularly those from the World Bank, dates published in 2017. It would be beneficial to update this data, both in the abstract and throughout the paper, if possible.

4. The introductory section is well-structured. However, it lacks relevant sources regarding students' entrepreneurial intentions and their openness to entrepreneurship.

5. The sample size is satisfactory.

6. The discussion is well-developed.

7. The conclusions of the research are clearly presented.

8. The authors have highlighted both the recommendations and the limitations.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The references are outdated and there are too few of them in the overview!

Sorry, it can't be fully corrected, otherwise it was corrected as I requested. Thanks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx