Does It Matter? Experimental Evidence on the (Signaling) Effect of Gender-Specific Accelerator Programs on Access to Angel Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review Report for Manuscript ID: admsci-3817153 – Comments to the Authors and Editor

 

1. Clarity and Validity of the Research Problem, Objectives, and Conceptual Framework

Comments:

• The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the gender gap in angel capital and contextualizes the importance of accelerator programs. However, the research gap could be made more explicit. For instance, while the article notes that the effect of gender-specific accelerators is underexplored, it does not sufficiently highlight how prior research has failed to address specific gaps (e.g., contradictory findings or methodological shortcomings).
• The conceptual framework (Figure 1) is clear and grounded in signaling theory and role congruity theory, but the relationships between constructs could be illustrated with more detail. For example, how perceived competence interacts with perceived industry experience and market knowledge in influencing investment decisions could be visually emphasized.

Suggestions:

• Include a dedicated paragraph summarizing the research gap with clear evidence from prior studies.
• Refine the conceptual framework diagram by showing the mediating and moderating effects more explicitly.

 

2. Appropriateness of the Research Methodology

Comments:

• The study uses a laboratory experiment with 227 participants, which is appropriate for testing causal relationships. However, the use of student participants (even though highly educated) raises questions about external validity when the target population is active angel investors.
• The partial least squares (PLS) analysis is suitable for the hypothesized model. Yet, some measurement and manipulation details need more explanation, such as the rationale for using only pitch decks (rather than including live or video pitches) and how this limitation may have influenced the evaluation of constructs like perceived industry experience.
• The inclusion of semi-structured interviews with angel investors strengthens the qualitative insights, but the integration of qualitative and quantitative findings could be clearer.

Suggestions:

• Provide stronger justification for using student participants and discuss the limitations more explicitly.
• Consider triangulating future studies with active angel investors or mixed-gender founder teams for improved generalizability.
• Explain how interview data corroborate or contrast with the experimental findings.

 

3. Hypotheses, Data Collection, Data Analysis, and Discussion

Comments:

• The hypotheses (H1a–H4f) are logically derived but numerous, making the narrative harder to follow. Grouping related hypotheses could improve readability.
• While the results are presented clearly, the discussion could better connect findings to broader literature. For example, the rejection of H1a/b and H2a/b could be linked more strongly to prior work on industry experience and market knowledge as investment criteria.
• The moderation findings regarding investor gender are valuable but underexplored. More nuanced interpretation is needed regarding why female investors respond differently to accelerator signals.

Suggestions:

• Summarize rejected and supported hypotheses in a clear table and discuss patterns rather than isolated results.
• Deepen the theoretical interpretation of gender differences in signal perception and link this to existing frameworks in signaling and gender studies.

 

4. Novelty and Academic Contribution

Comments:

• The study addresses a timely and relevant issue: whether gender-specific accelerator programs influence access to angel capital. This is a meaningful contribution to entrepreneurship and investment literature.
• However, the novelty could be better articulated. The article should explain how it goes beyond existing studies that have examined the gender gap and accelerator effects separately.

Suggestions:

• Emphasize how combining signaling theory with role congruity theory offers a new lens for understanding gender-specific interventions.
• Suggest future extensions (e.g., examining mixed-gender teams, cross-country comparisons, or longitudinal effects of accelerator participation).

 

Overall Assessment

This article is well-structured and tackles a significant problem in entrepreneurial finance. The experimental design and theoretical grounding are strong, but several areas require improvement to meet top-tier journal standards:

1. Strengthen the articulation of the research gap and novelty.
2. Clarify methodological limitations (especially student sample and use of pitch decks only).
3. Deepen the discussion and theoretical integration of findings, especially regarding rejected hypotheses and gender-moderated effects.
4. Enhance the conceptual framework figure and hypothesis grouping for clarity.

Recommendation: Major revision before it can be considered for acceptance in a high-impact journal.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been extremely valuable in helping us to improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the paper.

We have carefully considered all points raised. To facilitate your review of our revisions, we have organized our responses in a tabular format, aligning each comment with the corresponding changes made in the manuscript.

We hope that our revisions satisfactorily address your concerns and strengthen the manuscript, and we are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and timely research question: whether participation in accelerator programs (both gender-open and women-only) serves as a signal to angel investors, and whether investor gender moderates this effect. The theoretical framing is clear, combining signaling theory with role congruity theory, and the hypotheses are logically derived. The empirical section employs a well-structured laboratory experiment (N = 227) complemented by short expert interviews.

Despite these strengths, the study has methodological and interpretative limitations that should be addressed before publication. The most notable are:

• Contradiction between H3b and results: H3b predicted a negative association between women-only accelerator participation and perceived competence (due to stigmatization), yet results show a positive effect with a significant indirect path to investment decisions (H3c, H3d). The discussion should be expanded to consider alternative mechanisms (e.g., program reputation, quality screening, selective admission, visibility of high-quality mentoring) and boundary conditions under which positive vs. negative effects might occur.
• Experimental design limitations: The current design does not include male team conditions with an open accelerator, which limits the ability to determine whether accelerator signaling effects are specific to female teams or more general. It would be helpful to clarify and narrow the scope of generalizations accordingly, and to recommend replication with a “male team + open accelerator” condition in future research.
• Measurement constraints: All three mediators (“perceived industry experience”, “perceived market knowledge”, “perceived competence”) are measured with single items. This limits reliability and inflates structural model error. If possible, add short validated multi-item scales now, or at least strengthen the “Limitations” section and provide sensitivity checks (e.g., logistic/probit models for DV).
• DV modeling and reporting: As the DV is binary (invest vs. not invest), report robustness checks using logistic regression including mediators and interactions (open/women-only × investor gender). Provide number of bootstraps, CIs for indirect effects, explained variance, and effect sizes. Unify terminology (“access to angel capital” rather than “venture capital”) in tables and text.
• External validity: Given the student sample, emphasize that results speak to perceptions of signals rather than actual investor behavior. Narrow the scope of conclusions and consider recommending richer stimuli in future work (e.g., video pitches).
• Additional evidence (interviews): Explicitly describe the qualitative analysis procedure (coding approach, inter-coder reliability if applicable), integrate short illustrative quotes, and move detailed findings to supplementary materials.
• Stimuli and manipulation transparency: Provide anonymized pitch decks, pre-test results for photos (competence, attractiveness, trust, age), and exact instructions/questions in supplementary materials to ensure replicability.

Despite these limitations, the study offers pioneering empirical evidence that women-only accelerators can produce a positive competence signal with meaningful implications for supporting women in start-up ecosystems. This finding is highly relevant for both policy and practice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is clearly written and generally well-structured. Terminology is used consistently in most places, although minor corrections are needed for uniformity (e.g., consistent use of “gender-specific” / “gender-open” with hyphenation; replace “venture capital” with “angel capital” where applicable). Tense usage should be harmonized (past vs. present) when describing study results. Some phrases could be slightly refined for precision (e.g., “investment decision of angel investors” instead of “investment decision”). Overall, the language meets publication standards after minor editing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been extremely valuable in helping us to improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the paper.

We have carefully considered all points raised. To facilitate your review of our revisions, we have organized our responses in a tabular format, aligning each comment with the corresponding changes made in the manuscript.

We hope that our revisions satisfactorily address your concerns and strengthen the manuscript, and we are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded carefully and comprehensively to the main concerns raised in the first review. I appreciate the substantial effort that went into the revision. In particular:

• The discussion of the contradiction between H3b and the findings has been significantly expanded, now offering plausible alternative mechanisms and boundary conditions.
• Limitations regarding the absence of a male team + open accelerator condition are now explicitly acknowledged, and recommendations for future replication are clearly stated.
• Measurement limitations are discussed more transparently, with reference to relevant literature, and robustness checks using logistic regression have been added.
• The section on external validity has been substantially revised, now carefully distinguishing external, internal, and construct validity concerns, and narrowing the scope of conclusions.
• The analysis of interview data is better described, illustrative quotes have been included, and details moved to supplementary materials.
• Transparency has been improved by providing anonymized pitch decks, instructions, and pre-test results in the Supplementary Materials.
• Terminology has been unified (“angel capital” instead of “venture capital”).

Overall, these changes address the most significant issues raised in the first review and materially improve the manuscript’s rigor, transparency, and contribution.

Suggestions for Future Consideration:

• While the revised Limitations section is strong, it could be useful in future work to reflect on how single-item measures might influence the pattern of results (e.g., whether they tend to underestimate indirect effects due to measurement error).
• The robustness check with logistic regression is a valuable addition; in subsequent studies, authors may also consider reporting indirect effects in this framework with bootstrapped confidence intervals.

These are optional refinements for future research and do not affect my recommendation of acceptance for the current version.