From Gendered Entrepreneurial Cognition to Sustainable Performance: The Power of Women’s Entrepreneurial Capital in Emerging Economies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Sharpen the Contribution: Explicitly state the novel theoretical and empirical contributions in the introduction and discussion sections.

2. Clarify Methods: Expand the description of the qualitative analysis process and deepen the discussion of methodological limitations.

3. Contextualize Findings: Weave the Indonesian context more prominently into the discussion of the results.

4. Revise Implications: Deduplicate and specify the practical implications to make them more actionable.

5. Editorial Polish: Complete all references, include missing figures/tables, and perform a thorough language edit.

6. The manuscript contains several placeholders such as (Author, year) and (Removed for peer review). All citations must be completed before resubmission.
7. As noted above, there is duplicated text in the "Practical Implications" section that needs to be removed.
8. Figure 1 (Conceptual Framework) is cited but not included in the provided text. All figures and tables must be present in the final manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from thorough proofreading to correct minor grammatical errors and improve sentence flow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, your research paper makes a valuable contribution to the field by integrating gendered entrepreneurial cognition with women’s intellectual and social capital to explain sustainable performance in emerging economies. I appreciate the decision to adopt a robust mixed-method design and the triangulation of results to strengthen the validity and reliability of the findings. However, there are a few areas that I'd suggest you must improve, and a few others that, in my view, should be optional, as listed below:

1. Overall, consider improving the clarity and conciseness of the narrative. I was confused a few times, as the paper, while very detailed, is overly lengthy in certain sections and occasionally repetitive. For example, special attention should be given to the literature review and theoretical framework, as there is redundancy, making it difficult to read and follow the flow. For instance, in the Introduction section, lines 40-49, and in the Theoretical Framework, lines 91-102, you pretty much repeat the same text related to RBV, microfoundations, GEC as a cognitive foundation, whcih should be streamlined by introducing the concept once in the Introduction, then building directly on it in the Theory section without restating it in full. The same is true for these sections, but I may have missed some, so I suggest you review the entire paper:

Lines 70–81 and 731–749, which introduce the research questions and contributions, are repeated in the discussion.

Lines 158–198 vs. 737–747, discussing the direct effect of GEC on SP, which is explained in both the hypotheses development and later in the discussion with similar phrasing.

Lines 220–238 vs. 755–765, when you address the role of WIC in supporting SP, are described twice, once in hypothesis development and again in discussion.

Lines 239–260 vs. 761–769, where the role of WSC in driving SP is repeated.

Lines 261–295 and 774–777, which allude to the mediating roles of WIC and WSC, are described nearly verbatim in both hypotheses and the discussion.

Lines 702–729 vs. 731–780, discussing the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings, are restated in both the integration section and the start of the discussion.

Lines 86–89 vs. 797–801 (conclusion) – The practical contributions (for policymakers, empowerment agencies, incubators) are repeated in the conclusion.

2. There is a need for consistency in referencing, as there are several in-text citations that are placeholders (e.g., Author, year). These must be completed and standardized to ensure academic rigor. For example, in the Introduction, lines 65–68, and the Theoretical Framework, lines 131–135. There may be more, so I suggest you scan the paper for these, as they currently undermine the paper’s academic rigor.

3. Related to above, some citations appear inconsistently formatted (mix of years missing, or not aligned with the reference list). For example, lines 229, 311, 132-135, which must be corrected to meet academic standards and ensure the references match the reference list.

4. There is a need to better integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings. The integration section is strong, but you should more clearly highlight how the qualitative findings explain anomalies or borderline results in the quantitative phase. This triangulation needs sharper articulation. For example, in lines 704-717, although this passage is well-written, it is too general. You state that qualitative findings “explain these statistical patterns,” but do not directly connect quotes to specific anomalies or borderline quantitative cases. For example, respondents with high GEC but low SP, or strong WSC but weak WIC. Similarly, in lines 412-414, you mention the anomalies, but these anomaly cases are never explicitly revisited in the integration section. Make sure to go over the paper, tightening it up.

5. Ensure that you tighten the conceptual model and terminology, as it uses multiple overlapping constructs, such as GEC, WIC, WSC, WEC, and SP, but at times (e.g., lines 52-58, 83-84, 70-72, 737-739, and a few others), the boundaries between these are blurred. You should define each concept consistently and reinforce it to avoid conceptual drift. In other words, when these constructs overlap or shift in meaning, you risk a, which makes it harder for readers to clearly distinguish what is being measured (WIC, WSC) versus what is being theorized (WEC); it took me a couple of rounds to understand it. So, it reduces the precision of the theoretical contribution.

6. In the Conclusion Section, there are heavy overlaps with the discussion. You should condense it and focus on key findings, contributions, and implications, reserving elaboration for the discussion.

7. In the Practical Implications section, although the paper provides solid recommendations for policymakers and incubators, consider (optional) including more actionable insights for entrepreneurs themselves. For example, how women can practically strengthen WIC and WSC.

8. In the Theoretical Framing, while the integration of RBV, KBV, SCT, and microfoundations is innovative, it may overwhelm readers (it took me a couple of reads here). I suggest (optional) that you add a conceptual figure summarizing how each theory contributes uniquely, which could make the contribution clearer.

9. Consider a review of your language and style to improve clarity. Overall, the English is very good, but occasional long sentences (e.g., lines 44-49, 685-693) tend to reduce clarity. Consider shortening these sentences to improve accessibility for international readers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs to be edited and streamlined, as it leads to vague interpretation or presents some verbose sections that make it difficult to understand the information being conveyed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the honor of reviewing your work - The integration of Resource-Based View (RBV), Knowledge-Based View (KBV), Social Capital Theory (SCT), and microfoundations of strategy is conceptually rich and well-motivated. The mixed-method design adds depth and credibility to the findings. However, you may want to consider some areas to further improve your manuscript. 

Theoretical - The positioning of GEC is promising, but how is it difference or comparable analysis with other general entrepreneurial cognition models is required for creating theoretical distinctiveness. 

Constructs - Table 4 provides a clear mapping of constructs and indicators. However, the manuscript should briefly explain the origin of these items—whether they were adapted from prior validated scales or developed for this study. For example, the indicators for GEC would benefit from citation or justification to establish construct validity.

Qualitative - The qualitative phase is rich but under-leveraged in the main text. I agree with your thematic analysis approach but the manuscript would benefit from deeper integration of interview and FGD insights—especially to illustrate how women mobilize WIC and WSC in practice. For instance, quotes that show how knowledge or networks are enacted would reinforce the statistical findings and enhance narrative depth. 

Framework - The manuscript references multiple frameworks (RBV, KBV, SCT), but one is unclear about where they are specifically applicable and whether they operate in parallel, sequentially, or hierarchically in shaping sustainable performance. Theory stacking should be minimized for greater understanding and clarity. 

Implications - Kindly segment the implication section and the impact of the study for policymakers, ecosystem builders, and educators among others. 

Keep up the good work and all the very best!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Professional edit required because many sentences are overly abstract and dense and affect readability.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. Below are my suggestions

Lines 6-7 – postulate, source missing

Line 9 – as above

Lines 419–422 – How do we know that focusing on a single region or group determines representativeness? What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and why were other industries not included in the study? Could it be that women entrepreneurs operate only in the agricultural sector?

Line 404 (3) – how was this determined?

Line 431 – it would be useful to describe the pilot study procedure in more detail

Line 435 – ‘purposing sampling criteria’ and they were (criteria)? Only agriculture?

Line 436 – managers? An entrepreneur is an owner, while a manager works for someone else – I would suggest distinguishing between the two in the research sample and creating two groups.

Line 440 – I would like to see this questionnaire.

If a Likert scale is used, it would be worth checking the correlation and multiple regression. I also do not see the distribution of respondents' ages or types of education, which would certainly enrich the research results.

Table 8 – I would suggest introducing adjusted R2.

Line 1047 – I would suggest introducing a confidence interval for the fraction in order to determine the minimum sample size threshold and estimate the error.

 

General comments

The language of the article is very good, with a few instances of repetition.

The statistical calculations were performed correctly, but a few doubts arose, in particular the equalisation of managers and business owners and the disputable representativeness. The purpose of a scientific article is to enable the transformation (induction) of results on a larger scale, whereas in this work the research was limited to one sector. If the authors wish to limit respondents by sector, it would be worthwhile to compare the results from the same sector in other regions of the country or other countries.

The article lacks clearly marked innovation.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an exceptionally robust and well-executed study. The mixed-methods design is a major strength, with quantitative and qualitative phases expertly integrated to provide compelling, triangulated evidence. The methodology is transparent and replicable.

To further strengthen the manuscript, consider:

1. Conciseness: Tighten the Discussion by consolidating slightly repetitive explanations of the mediation pathways.

2. Formatting: Correct the minor layout issue in the PLSpredict results table (Table 10.11).

3. Polish: A final proofread to refine occasional awkward phrases (e.g., "RBV postsexplains") will enhance readability.

These are minor revisions to an outstanding paper that makes significant theoretical and empirical contributions.

                   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your revised paper now offers a well-developed and strong theoretical foundation, with a clear methodological design and integration of quantitative/qualitative findings. The results are now presented with greater clarity, and both theoretical and practical contributions are articulated in a manner that I believe will appeal to scholars and practitioners. I have a few minor refinement suggestions, though:

1. Make sure to double-check for minor editorial inconsistencies. For example, as I read the paper, I still see placeholder citations such as “Author, year” that remain in a few places. Granted, there are so many editing and revision marks that were hard to read in some places. Maybe this isn't an issue once the revision marks are cleaned up.
2. I suggest you streamline some repetitive elements in the introduction and theoretical framework for conciseness. For example, in the Introduction, the overlapping definitions of RBV, in Lines 40–42: “The Resource-Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991) posits explains that competitive advantage and sustainable performance are derived from depends on resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN)," and Lines 104–107, “RBV emphasizes that competitive advantagehighlights that sustainable performance emerges from the possession and SP are determined byutilization of strategic resources that are valuable, rare, inimitableunique, difficult to replicate, and non-substitutable (VRIN)not easily substituted (Barney, 1991).” These two passages repeat the RBV/VRIN definition almost verbatim. One could be condensed or referenced instead of fully restated. The same is true for Lines 49–52 and Lines 113–115, Lines 150–157, and Lines 208–217, and so on. I'd suggest you "scan the paper for such duplications.
3. Ensure uniform terminology across constructs and tables/figures (e.g., consistent reference to WIC, WSC, and WEC). For example, in some sections, WEC is highlighted as the central integrative construct, but in the empirical testing, it is not explicitly listed. The distinction (theorized vs. measured) is clear in the text, but the inconsistency could confuse readers unless carefully harmonized across narrative, tables, and figures. For instance, in Lines 61–63, you wrote “Taken together, this study introduces Women’s Entrepreneurial Capital (WEC) as the integration of WIC and WSC…”, and then in Lines 134–137, you wrote “Together, WIC and WSC constitute the measurable dimensions of WEC—a broader conceptual umbrella of women’s entrepreneurial capital.” Then, in Tables 2 and 4 (e.g., line 362 onward), the Hypotheses and variable operationalization list GEC, WIC, WSC, SP, but not WEC.
4. Another example is your use of Capital Constructs. For example, in Lines 55–62 you wrote that “Women’s Intellectual Capital (WIC)” and “Women’s Social Capital (WSC)” are used consistently. Then, in Line 66, you wrote that “However, these approaches fail to adequately capture the cognitive mechanisms, knowledge capital, and network resources…” So, here “knowledge capital” and “network resources” appear, which may suggest different constructs. It would be clearer to consistently use “intellectual capital” and “social capital.”

    

    

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript and for the thoughtful revisions you’ve made in response to the initial feedback. Your integration of Resource-Based View (RBV), Knowledge-Based View (KBV), Social Capital Theory (SCT), and microfoundations of strategy remains conceptually rich and well-motivated. The mixed-methods design adds valuable depth, and the contextual focus on Indonesian women entrepreneurs contributes meaningfully to geographic diversity in entrepreneurship research.

As you continue refining the manuscript, I offer the following observations to help strengthen its theoretical clarity and positioning:

Positioning of GEC: Gendered Entrepreneurial Cognition (GEC) is framed as a contextual cognitive orientation, and its role in shaping WIC and WSC is well-articulated. However, it is not yet theorized with sufficient depth to function as a standalone form of entrepreneurial capital. To elevate its theoretical contribution, consider developing formal propositions, mechanism-level logic, or comparative analysis with general entrepreneurial cognition models.

Framework Integration: The use of RBV, KBV, and SCT is conceptually aligned and supportive of your mediation model. That said, the frameworks currently operate in parallel rather than forming a synergistic or generative theoretical architecture. Clarifying how GEC modifies or challenges the assumptions of these frameworks could enhance coherence and originality.

Policy Implications: The practical recommendations are thoughtful and well-segmented. However, the suggestion that policymakers should recognize GEC as a form of entrepreneurial capital may overstate its current theoretical status. Framing GEC as a cognitive antecedent that activates intangible resources may offer a more precise and defensible contribution.

Empirical Contribution: The contextual data enrich the literature and offer valuable insight into women’s entrepreneurial strategies. While the manuscript validates known pathways—such as WIC and WSC as mediators—it does not yet advance conceptual boundaries or reshape existing models.

Your work addresses an important and underrepresented context, and I hope these observations are helpful as you continue to refine your manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept implemented changes.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have not provided sufficient clarifications and the changes have been superficial. 

Author Response

Comments 1:

Positioning of GEC: Gendered Entrepreneurial Cognition (GEC) is framed as a contextual cognitive orientation, and its role in shaping WIC and WSC is well-articulated. However, it is not yet theorized with sufficient depth to function as a standalone form of entrepreneurial capital. To elevate its theoretical contribution, consider developing formal propositions, mechanism-level logic, or comparative analysis with general entrepreneurial cognition models.

Respons 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this highly constructive comment, which significantly helped us enhance the theoretical depth and clarity of the manuscript. We fully acknowledge that the previous version positioned Gendered Entrepreneurial Cognition (GEC) primarily as a contextual cognitive orientation, which limited its explanatory power as a form of entrepreneurial capital. In the revised version, we have undertaken a substantial theoretical enhancement to elevate GEC into a more robust conceptual entity that functions as a micro-cognitive capital and an integrative mechanism linking individual cognition with intangible resources.

Specifically, we have made the following major revisions (all highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript):

1. Development of Formal Propositions (New Section 2.2.1, “Conceptual Foundations and Propositions”)
   We expanded Section 2.2 by formally articulating three propositions (P1–P3) that explain how GEC functions as a gendered cognitive filter, a mechanism-generating process, and a contextual framework that differentiates it from general entrepreneurial cognition. These propositions provide the manuscript with explicit theoretical structure and predictive value—transforming GEC from a descriptive construct into a theory-driven concept.

   • Proposition 1 identifies GEC as a gendered cognitive filter that transforms socio-cultural experience into pathways for developing WIC and WSC.

   • Proposition 2 introduces mechanism-level processes (experiential learning, negotiation of social roles, and collective sensemaking) through which cognition becomes tangible capital.

   • Proposition 3 differentiates GEC from traditional cognition models by emphasizing its context-specific nature rooted in gendered opportunities and constraints.

2. Addition of Mechanism-Level Logic (New Subsection 2.2.2)
   To respond directly to the reviewer’s recommendation, we incorporated an entirely new subsection titled “2.2.2 Mechanism-Level Logic of Gendered Entrepreneurial Cognition (GEC)”. This subsection explicates the internal mechanisms through which gendered cognition is converted into entrepreneurial capital. We identify three core mechanisms—sensemaking, learning-by-doing, and gender-role negotiation—that collectively demonstrate how women entrepreneurs translate social experience into intellectual and social resources.

   • Sensemaking highlights how women reinterpret environmental constraints through affective and moral reasoning, turning obstacles into opportunities.

   • Learning-by-doing explains the iterative, experiential accumulation of managerial knowledge that forms the basis of WIC.

   • Gender-role negotiation shows how women reconfigure social expectations to build trust-based, reciprocal networks (WSC).
     This addition provides a clear microfoundational logic, aligning with the mechanistic theorization expected in top-tier entrepreneurship journals.

3. Comparative Analysis with General Entrepreneurial Cognition Models
   We now explicitly contrast GEC with the general entrepreneurial cognition frameworks of Mitchell et al. (2002) and Grégoire et al. (2011). The revised text (highlighted in yellow within Section 2.2.2) argues that unlike traditional cognition models that emphasize neutral, rational information processing, GEC embeds socio-cultural, affective, and normative dimensions. It therefore captures gendered lived realities that shape opportunity recognition, risk assessment, and decision-making. This comparative analysis clearly establishes the distinct domain of GEC within entrepreneurial cognition theory.

4. Repositioning GEC as Micro-Cognitive Capital
   To elevate GEC’s theoretical status, we now conceptualize it as a form of micro-cognitive capital—an intangible, inimitable, and socially embedded resource that activates other forms of capital. This addition (end of Section 2.2.2) reframes GEC from a mere antecedent variable into a foundational intangible resource that stimulates the creation of WIC and WSC. This reframing directly addresses the reviewer’s concern regarding GEC’s capacity to function as a standalone form of entrepreneurial capital.

5. Stylistic and Structural Refinement for Clarity
   To improve readability and logical flow, we divided Section 2.2 into two coherent sub-sections—2.2.1 Conceptual Foundations and Propositions and 2.2.2 Mechanism-Level Logic of GEC. This structure enables readers to see a clear progression from conceptual theorization to mechanistic explanation, aligning the section with best practices in theory-building manuscripts.

As a result of these revisions, the manuscript now advances a more generative theoretical architecture in which GEC:

1. Functions as a micro-foundation and a resource simultaneously—bridging individual cognition and resource creation.

2. Provides mechanism-level explanations for how women transform social experiences into knowledge and relational capital.

3. Extends existing entrepreneurial cognition theory by embedding social, cultural, and gendered meaning within cognitive processes.

This repositioning substantially enhances the theoretical coherence and originality of the study. We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s insightful recommendation, which led us to articulate the cognitive mechanisms and capital-forming processes that now form the intellectual backbone of the revised framework.

All corresponding additions and modifications have been clearly highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comments 2:

Framework Integration (RBV–KBV–SCT–Microfoundations):
The use of RBV, KBV, and SCT is conceptually aligned and supportive of your mediation model. That said, the frameworks currently operate in parallel rather than forming a synergistic or generative theoretical architecture. Clarifying how GEC modifies or challenges the assumptions of these frameworks could enhance coherence and originality.

Respons 2:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment highlighting the need to strengthen the synergistic integration among the Resource-Based View (RBV), Knowledge-Based View (KBV), and Social Capital Theory (SCT). We fully agree that the previous version of the manuscript treated these frameworks as parallel lenses, which limited their capacity to form a generative theoretical architecture. In response, we have made substantial conceptual refinements to enhance theoretical coherence and demonstrate how Gendered Entrepreneurial Cognition (GEC) reconfigures and integrates these frameworks into a unified architecture.

All corresponding revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the updated manuscript, specifically within Section 2.1 “Conceptual Foundations: From Gendered Entrepreneurial Cognition to Sustainable Performance”.

The revisions are summarized below:

1. Repositioning GEC as an Integrative Mechanism
   We have revised the narrative following the discussions of RBV, KBV, and SCT to explicitly define GEC as a generative mechanism that integrates these perspectives. The revised text emphasizes that RBV, KBV, and SCT do not operate independently but rather converge through the interpretive lens of GEC, which cognitively links resources, knowledge, and social relations within gendered contexts.
   This reframing directly addresses the reviewer’s call for a “synergistic or generative theoretical architecture.” The new paragraph begins with: “To strengthen the coherence of the theoretical architecture, this study emphasizes that RBV, KBV, and SCT do not operate in isolation but converge through the integrative lens of GEC…”

2. Theoretical Reconfiguration of RBV, KBV, and SCT
   In the same paragraph, we expanded the explanation of how GEC modifies the core assumptions of each framework:

   • Challenging RBV: We state that GEC questions the resource neutrality assumption in RBV by showing that resource recognition and mobilization are shaped by gendered cognition and lived experience, making resource identification a socially embedded cognitive act.

   • Expanding KBV: We clarify that GEC reveals how knowledge creation and learning trajectories are inherently gendered—emerging from relational, experiential, and community-based practices rather than firm-centric knowledge processes.

   • Enriching SCT: We emphasize that women’s social capital (WSC) operates through affective, trust-based, and reciprocal logics, differing from instrumental networking in traditional SCT.

   These additions explicitly show how GEC transforms, rather than simply applies, each theoretical lens — responding directly to the reviewer’s suggestion to clarify “how GEC modifies or challenges the assumptions of these frameworks.”

3. Conceptual Synthesis Paragraph
   To ensure clear theoretical closure, we added a synthesis statement at the end of the paragraph, which reads: “Thus, GEC reconfigures RBV, KBV, and SCT from neutral resource perspectives into socially embedded, gender-sensitive frameworks. It bridges cognitive microfoundations with resource-based explanations by showing that cognition itself is a productive resource—one that generates, activates, and sustains the formation of women’s intellectual and social capital.”

   This statement now functions as the theoretical “anchor” that links microfoundations logic with macro-level frameworks, thereby elevating the manuscript’s conceptual originality.

4. Removal of Redundant Content and Structural Refinement
   To avoid redundancy with earlier or subsequent sections, the revised text replaces the former concluding paragraph of Section 2.1 (lines 185–195 in the previous version). This ensures that the new synthesis paragraph fully integrates the synergy discussion without duplicating prior explanations of RBV, KBV, or SCT. The transition to the methodological section (“In line with this theoretical integration…”) was also refined for smoother continuity.

Through these revisions, the integration of RBV, KBV, SCT, and the microfoundations perspective has been transformed from a parallel configuration into a coherent generative system driven by GEC. The revised framework now:

1. Positions GEC as the cognitive bridge uniting resource-based, knowledge-based, and social capital perspectives.

2. Demonstrates that cognition itself constitutes a productive resource capable of generating and activating intangible capital.

3. Clarifies how gendered cognition reinterprets, extends, and enriches foundational theoretical assumptions, ensuring conceptual novelty and deeper explanatory power.

These refinements directly address the reviewer’s comment and reinforce the manuscript’s contribution to entrepreneurship theory by presenting GEC as both an integrative mechanism and a theoretical innovation that redefines how resource, knowledge, and social capital interact in women’s entrepreneurship.

All corresponding additions and modifications are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Comments 3:

Policy Implications: The practical recommendations are thoughtful and well-segmented. However, the suggestion that policymakers should recognize GEC as a form of entrepreneurial capital may overstate its current theoretical status. Framing GEC as a cognitive antecedent that activates intangible resources may offer a more precise and defensible contribution.

Respons 3:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful feedback regarding the theoretical precision of the policy implications. We fully acknowledge that, in the earlier version of the manuscript, the phrasing “GEC as a form of entrepreneurial capital” could be interpreted as overstating its conceptual maturity. In line with the reviewer’s constructive suggestion, we have refined both the terminology and interpretive framing of this section to present GEC as a cognitive antecedent rather than as a distinct form of capital.

Specifically, the revised text (highlighted in yellow in Section 5.3, Practical Implications) now reads: “Policymakers should therefore recognize GEC as a cognitive antecedent that activates and strengthens women’s intangible resources (WIC and WSC), and design policies that mobilize these resources as part of inclusive economic development strategies. This framing ensures conceptual precision while maintaining policy relevance, positioning GEC as the cognitive foundation from which women’s intellectual and social capital emerge and contribute to inclusive and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems.”

This revision reflects a careful theoretical recalibration, emphasizing that GEC serves as a triggering mechanism—the cognitive foundation that stimulates the formation of Women’s Intellectual Capital (WIC) and Women’s Social Capital (WSC). Rather than categorizing GEC as an independent form of capital, we now conceptualize it as the microfoundational antecedent that activates and organizes these intangible resources within gendered entrepreneurial ecosystems.

In making this adjustment, we aimed to align the theoretical hierarchy across the manuscript:

• At the conceptual level (Section 2), GEC remains a gendered cognitive microfoundation within the RBV–KBV–SCT architecture.

• At the empirical level (Sections 4–5), GEC functions as a predictor that explains the activation of intangible resources.

• At the policy level (Section 5.3), it becomes a cognitive antecedent guiding how interventions and training modules should be designed to mobilize WIC and WSC.

We believe this revision significantly improves both the conceptual defensibility and policy applicability of the paper. It ensures that the manuscript’s argument remains theoretically grounded while still offering actionable insights for policymakers.

All changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript (Section 5.3) for ease of review.

Comments 4:

Empirical Contribution: The contextual data enrich the literature and offer valuable insight into women’s entrepreneurial strategies. While the manuscript validates known pathways—such as WIC and WSC as mediators—it does not yet advance conceptual boundaries or reshape existing models.

Respons 4:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. In response, we have substantially strengthened the Discussion section (Section 5.1) to clarify the paper’s boundary-spanning empirical and theoretical contribution. Specifically, we have added two complementary paragraphs at the end of Section 5.1 that explicitly demonstrate how the study transcends simple validation of known mediations by introducing microfoundational and mechanism-level logic grounded in the Indonesian context.

1. A new paragraph beginning with “Beyond confirming established mediations…” has been inserted to emphasize how cognitive microfoundations—rooted in gendered experience—operate as the initial condition for building intangible resources under institutional voids.
   This paragraph unpacks the sequential mechanism (caution → adaptation → trust) and shows that GEC functions through perception, learning, and network mobilization. This addition elevates the analysis from confirmatory evidence to a theory-extending explanation that bridges cognition and resource-formation processes.

2. A second paragraph starting with “Beyond validating known pathways…” has been added immediately afterward to reinforce the empirical advancement of this work.
   It highlights practices such as informal cooperative finance, reciprocal trust-building, and adaptive learning routines—mechanism-level behaviors rarely documented in mainstream entrepreneurship studies.
   By articulating these empirical regularities, the revision demonstrates how GEC operates as a gendered cognitive antecedent that distinctly activates WIC and WSC in resource-constrained environments, thereby linking micro-level cognition with macro-level sustainable performance outcomes.

Together, these revisions make explicit how the study (a) extends the conceptual boundary of women’s entrepreneurship beyond conventional mediation validation, and (b) provides rich, context-sensitive evidence of how cognition becomes capital in under-institutionalized ecosystems.
All new and revised text has been highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted manuscript for the reviewer’s convenience.