Review Reports - Entrepreneurial Performance of New Ventures in the Sustainable Open Innovation Paradigm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

While the abstract clearly summarizes the dataset, key findings, and broad contribution, I suggest to briefly clarify the research gap explicitly (what is missing in prior research) that this study fills. Furthermore, the readers may benefit from specifying the analytical technique as they expect to know whether results come from regression, SEM, or correlational analysis and tightening the contribution statement by distinguishing between theoretical and managerial contributions.

MDPI abstract guidelines emphasize clarity on gap, method, and contribution.

Introduction:

The introduction is largely descriptive. It should more clearly articulate why entrepreneurial performance under sustainable open innovation remains under-theorized. While the authors state that the topic is “not yet explored,” they does not specify how existing studies fall short (e.g., focus on incumbents, qualitative case studies, single industries). A short paragraph explicitly stating what prior studies examine, what they overlook, and how this study addresses that gap would help to position the manuscript and clarify the contribution.

Theoretical framework:

The theoreical framework provides a wide coverage of open innovation, sustainability, and entrepreneurial performance. My main concern is with construct boundaries. I suggest the authors distinguish more clearly between sustainable open innovation (process-level) and Entrepreneurial performance (outcome-level). A conceptual framework figure showing how sustainable materials, energy, and community link to performance via RBV logic can visually support the key constructs and their hypothesized relationships, making the underlying theory easier to interpret for readers. Several paragraphs can be made more concise as they restate known benefits of open innovation without advancing theory.

Hypotheses development:

Hypotheses are logically ordered and are grounded in prior literature. H3, which examines the link between community support and entrepreneurial performance is weakly theorized and could benefit from social capital or stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). Age, gender, and academic degree are better treated as controls, not hypotheses. I suggest to reframe H4–H6 as control expectations or exploratory analyses.

Materials and Methods:

Its important to address common method bias and clarify response rate. All data are self-reported and collected via a single survey. How many firms were contacted versus responses received? In addition, I suggest to justify EU focus. Explain why EU-28 STPs are theoretically relevant. Harman’s single-factor test or marker variable discussion may be useful.

With regards to the measures, please include full survey items in an appendix.

Its also important to address the limitations of the model. Hypotheses are tested using correlations and mean differences, which limits causal inference.

Results

Correlation does not imply impact. language should reflect association, not causality. “Partially accepted” hypotheses should be justified more formally.

Discussion

Its critical to explain how findings extend RBV or open innovation theory. This is important to strengthen the contribution of the manuscript. In addition, explain null results, particularly for local community support and demographic variables. Some arguments restate results rather than interpret them.

Conclusion

Practical implications are clearly stated. The conclusion can be improved by explicitly acknowledging cross-sectional design and regional context limitations in a sub-section. Provide theory-driven future research directions, not just methodological ones.

Author Response

Please find attached the review report.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read your paper with interest and found it, overall, methodologically sound. You present a timely study with strong empirical grounding and clear relevance to sustainable entrepreneurship and open innovation. There are, however, some moderate revisions necessary to improve conceptual focus, methodological transparency (in particular), and presentation polishing. I have outlined below my recommendations for your consideration:

You should clarify the Introduction and theoretical framing section by sharpening early definitions of sustainable open innovation and entrepreneurial performance.
Also very important: explicitly highlight the main theoretical lenses, such as RBV, in the Introduction to strengthen coherence with the hypothesis development.
I also recommend that you improve the literature synthesis by reducing descriptive citation clusters and strengthening analytical integration. In other words, some parts of the literature review read like a list of studies, rather than a theory-driven conversation among studies. While your paper shows good coverage of the literature, it sometimes describes what prior studies say, instead of explaining how they relate to each other, where they agree or diverge, and how that leads logically to your hypotheses.
You should improve the transparency of your methodology (this is the main issue I see). Make sure to explicitly identify the study as cross-sectional and discuss implications for causal inference. For example, in line 286, you wrote, "The questionnaire was available online between October and December 2023. A reminder was sent to the companies at the beginning of December 2023.” You should explicitly label the design by adding that this study adopts a cross-sectional research design, as data were collected at a single point in time from entrepreneurs participating in open innovation networks.
Also, you need to provide additional details on the survey instrument to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of your research. For example, you should include the item sources, the scale anchors used, the adaptation process adopted, and, if necessary, place some of that in an appendix (questionnaire).
Very important, make sure to address common method bias and non-response bias, either through procedural remedies, statistical tests, or explicit acknowledgment.
When reporting your statistics (optional), where feasible, I'd suggest adding a brief reference to effect sizes or practical magnitude (without reanalyzing the dataset). In other words, help the reader understand how strong or meaningful the relationships are, not just whether they are statistically significant. For example, you reported the correlations (r values), means, and significance levels (p-values). What’s missing is a sentence of interpretation answering whether these results are a small, moderate, or strong relationship in practical terms.
Your Results and Discussion sections overlap. Make sure to keep their boundaries. In other words, you should remove any interpretive language from the Results section and relocate it fully to the Discussion section, where you should be making your own interpretations.
In the Conclusions and Implications sections, I'd suggest youslightly temper broad claims about long-term resilience, ecosystems, or policy impact.
Consider separating empirical findings from speculative or forward-looking recommendations.
Also, make sure the conclusions and implications do not exceed what is supported by the cross-sectional evidence you gathered. In other words, avoid language that implies causality, long-term impact, or developmental change when your data only show associations at a single point in time. Your results are valid. But they need to be framed within the limits of cross-sectional evidence.
Lastly, I'd suggest you try to reduce verbosity and redundancy, particularly in the theoretical framework and discussion. For example, in Section 2. Theoretical Framework, lines ~96–105, you wrote "Open innovation also fosters a culture of collaboration and co-creation, which is particularly valuable for new ventures operating in dynamic and uncertain environments. Open innovation encourages fluidity and exchange of ideas across disciplines and sectors, enabling participants to tap into fresh perspectives and novel insights. Hofstetter et al. (2021) reveal this cross-pollination of ideas not only sparks creativity but also enhances the quality and relevance of solutions developed. Furthermore, open innovation promotes transparency and trust, essential ingredients for successful collaboration…” The terms "Collaboration,” “co-creation,” “exchange of ideas,” and “cross-pollination” repeat the same mechanism. You have explained trust and collaboration more than once, but no new theoretical insight is added after the first two sentences. There are other similar instances such as this throughout the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest professional English-language editing to improve fluency, reduce repetition, and streamline sentence structure. Also, to reduce verbosity and redundancy, particularly in the theoretical framework and discussion.

Author Response

Please find attached the review report.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ efforts in revising the manuscript in response to the review.

Author Response

We appreciate the review suggestions and comments received by both reviewers. These elements are key to improving the final quality of the manuscript. Below we respond to each issue raised. The performed changes are highlighted in the manuscript with the blue color.

Phase II

Referee #1

I appreciate the authors’ efforts in revising the manuscript in response to the review.

Author’s response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation and recommendation for the acceptance of this article. We have only some performed language polishing to reduce occasional redundancy and improve the flow in the final version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your careful and thorough revisions. You have satisfactorily addressed all substantive concerns raised in the previous review round, particularly by strengthening the theoretical framing, clarifying the cross-sectional design and its methodological limitations, improving the integration of the literature, and appropriately tempering the conclusions. In my opinion, only minor revisions remain, limited to light language polishing, further reduction of occasional redundancy (especially in the Discussion), and final stylistic tightening. No additional theoretical, methodological, or analytical changes are required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Phase II

Referee #2

Author’s response: Thanks for your positive evaluation regarding the quality and relevance of the work. Accordingly, we have requested the support of a professional agency to check and improve the English level of this manuscript. After that, we checked the writing quality level using the Grammarly software. Literature Review section obtained a 99/100 score, while Discussion section obtained a 96/100 score.