Review Reports - The Influence of Behavioral Intention on the Entrepreneurial Passion and Organizational Commitment of Women Entrepreneurs: A Qualitative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors:

Thank you for submitting your work to Administrative Sciences.
Please find several recommendations to improve the quality of this manuscript:
1. Abstract: Please add a result of this study in the abstract.
2. Introduction: This section lacks recent background information. The authors have cited outdated references. Please replace those old publications with the recent ones. Use only references that covers maximum of 8 years back, starting from 2019 onwards. This guarantees updated research. Read more literature that similarly discusses this topic. The authors may consider:
a. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2025-0021
b. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22190
There are no Research Questions (RQs) that are explicitly stated in this section. Thus, this work lacks the significance of the research.
3. Materials and methods: Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents. What does the education (years) column mean? If the authors want to provide information related to the educational background, please add the education level as well. Only ten respondents have been collected within this study. The authors need to confirm the required number of respondents to have a valid result. The step-by-step data analysis should be depicted in a flowchart to guarantee the reproducibility of this research. Further, what kind of data analysis technique did the authors use? Which method did the authors employ: quantitative or qualitative? This section must provide a comprehensive and systematic methodology: (i) research design, (ii) data collection methods, (iii) sample selection, and (iv) data analysis techniques. This research model also need to be depicted in this section.
4. Results: Who will validate the results? Is there any further process that, after the authors collect information from the respondents and analyze it, a verification and validation process comes after it? Can these results be generalized to all fields, or only the local results that the authors analyzed, which is Mexico? How to generalize the varied results of the ten respondents to produce broad findings? Even though this research adopts a qualitative method, some statistical analyses need to be checked, such as whether the ten respondents are enough. A summary table or chart may help to improve the readability and interests to readers.
5. Discussion: This section must answer the RQs that need to be explicitly stated in the Introduction section. Further, the comparison with existing literature is outdated. The authors need to update their knowledge with the current literature. Additionally, the implications and limitations of the study must be provided in this section.
6. Conclusion: The authors performed with an extremely minimal content of conclusion. Please improve this section; at least these three pieces of information have to be included: (i) summary of key findings, (ii) contributions to the field, and (iii) recommendations for future research.
7. References: Remove the outdated publications. Explore more recent literature, starting from 2019 onwards.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for a clear, actionable set of seven recommendations. Each is addressed below.

Comment 1

"Abstract: Please add a result of this study in the abstract."

Response: We agree. The Abstract previously described only the theoretical framing and the gap addressed by the study, without reporting a finding. We added three sentences at the end of the Abstract reporting the study's central result: that entrepreneurial intention does not dissolve once the business is created, but re-emerges as entrepreneurial passion in the early, uncertain stages of the venture and, once the business incorporates employees and customers, crystallizes into organizational commitment, which feeds back into and reinforces entrepreneurial passion — a finding synthesized into the integrative, sequential model presented in the article. This addition is highlighted in the Abstract.

Comment 2

"Introduction: This section lacks recent background information. The authors have cited outdated references. Please replace those old publications with the recent ones. Use only references that cover a maximum of 8 years back, starting from 2019 onwards... The authors may consider: (a) https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2025-0021, (b) https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22190. There are no Research Questions (RQs) that are explicitly stated in this section. Thus, this work lacks the significance of the research."

Response: The Introduction was substantially rewritten (Section 1, and the new Section “2. Research Problem and Gap”) using literature published between 2019 and 2026, and every citation in these sections now falls within that window (highlighted in yellow, carried over from the previous revision round). Both suggested references were incorporated and are cited by name: reference (a) corresponds to Trinh, Do, Nguyen & Nguyen (2026), “Women’s entrepreneurial intention in Taiwan...”, cited repeatedly throughout the theoretical framework (e.g., Sections 2.3–2.7); reference (b) corresponds to Liao, Nguyen, Yeong, Hong Vu & Trinh (2023), “Unraveling the effects of entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention...”, used as the basis for the inventor/founder/developer passion typology applied in Sections 2.4 and 4.1 and in the Results. We also added an explicit “2.1 Objective and Research Questions” subsection with three research questions (PI1–PI3) that state, respectively, how attitude and subjective norm relate to intention formation, how intention translates into behaviour and passion, and how organizational commitment is activated — giving the study an explicit empirical target. In the current round, we further strengthened this by adding a paragraph at the start of the Discussion (Section 5) that answers PI1–PI3 directly against the findings (see our response to Comment 5).

Comment 3

"Materials and methods: Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents. What does the education (years) column mean?... Only ten respondents have been collected... The step-by-step data analysis should be depicted in a flowchart... what kind of data analysis technique did the authors use? Which method... quantitative or qualitative?... This research model also needs to be depicted in this section."

Response: We addressed each element of this comment. (1) Table 1’s ambiguous “education (years)” column has been replaced with a categorical “Education Level” column (High school, Bachelor, University, Master), removing the ambiguity the reviewer identified. (2) The qualitative nature of the study is now stated explicitly in the opening sentence of Section 3 (“A qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive study was conducted...”), and the adequacy of ten participants is justified methodologically in Section 3.1 through the qualitative concepts of sufficiency and saturation, which we now discuss in the Limitations section as well (see response to Comment 5). (3) To make the analytical procedure reproducible, we added a new flowchart, Figure 2 (“Step-by-step data analysis procedure”, Section 3.2), depicting the six-step sequence — verbatim transcription, initial coding, the four iterative voice-centred relational readings, emergence/refinement of subcategories, data reduction and triangulation, and grounded-theory interpretation — with a cross-reference sentence added to the text. We also added a sentence describing the investigator-triangulation strategy used to validate the coding (independent reading by team members, with disagreements resolved through discussion), responding as well to the related question in Comment 4 below on who validates the results. (4) The proposed integrative model itself: the reviewer’s note that “this research model also needs to be depicted” is addressed by the model diagram already introduced in the theoretical framework (Section 2.7, “Model Sequential Diagram”, presented before the Methods section so that readers see the model before the empirical section) and by Figure 1, which visualizes the same model once grounded in the findings (Section 4.1, renumbered from “5.1” to “4.1. Integrative Model” in this round to correct a section-numbering inconsistency, since it belongs to the Results, not the Discussion).

Comment 4

"Results: Who will validate the results? Is there any further process... verification and validation...? Can these results be generalized to all fields, or only the local results... Mexico? How to generalize the varied results of the ten respondents...? Even though this research adopts a qualitative method, some statistical analyses need to be checked, such as whether the ten respondents are enough. A summary table or chart may help to improve the readability..."

Response: Validation: as noted above, Section 3.2 now explicitly describes investigator triangulation (independent reading and consensus-based resolution of disagreements) together with the triangulation of testimonies, authors, and concepts already described, as the study’s validation strategy, following Vives & Hamui (2021). Generalizability: Section 3.2 already stated that the qualitative data “cannot be extrapolated to other entrepreneurial ventures”, but that “the epistemological and methodological approach is transferable to other studies for comparison”; we have expanded this point substantially in the new Limitations subsection at the end of the Discussion (see Comment 5), which explicitly discusses the boundaries of generalization to Mexico/Cuernavaca and to university-linked entrepreneurs specifically. Sample adequacy: this is a qualitative, saturation-based design rather than a statistically powered one; Section 3.1 explains that data collection continued until a “point of sufficiency” and a “point of saturation” were reached, which is the accepted adequacy criterion for this type of design, and the Limitations subsection now states this explicitly alongside the sample’s bounds. Summary table/chart: we added a sentence in Section 4 (Results) cross-referencing Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials, which consolidates the complete category-theme-subtheme structure from the content analysis in a single table, complementing Tables 2–5 (which retain the exemplar quotes) without duplicating them in the main text. We also completed the previously empty “Supplementary Materials” statement in the back matter to describe Table S1 properly, as required by the journal’s template.

Comment 5

"Discussion: This section must answer the RQs that need to be explicitly stated in the Introduction section. Further, the comparison with existing literature is outdated... Additionally, the implications and limitations of the study must be provided in this section."

Response: We added a new paragraph immediately after the opening paragraph of Section 5 (Discussion) that answers PI1, PI2, and PI3 directly against the study’s findings, linking each research question to the relevant evidence and citations. Literature currency: as with the Introduction, the works cited throughout Section 5 fall within the 2019–2026 window (e.g., Meyer, 2025; Ahmad et al., 2022; Iqbal et al., 2021; Santana-Martins et al., 2022; Tsaknis & Sahinidis, 2024). Implications: theoretical and practical implications are discussed throughout Section 5 (e.g., the discussion of the TRA’s limits and the proposed integrative reframing in Section 4.1; the practical implications for training, public policy, and financing running through Section 5 and now made explicit in the “Contribution to the field” paragraph of the Conclusions — see Comment 6). Limitations: this was the one element genuinely missing, and we added a new, dedicated “Limitations” subsection at the end of the Discussion (before the Conclusions), covering, in order: the bounded, university-linked sample and its consequences for generalizability; the convenience/chain-sampling strategy and possible self-selection bias; the cross-sectional, single-interview, retrospective design and its implications for the sequential claims of the model; the fact that the model’s six theoretical propositions (Q1–Q6) are conceptual and still require empirical testing; and the cultural/linguistic specificity of the Mexican sample.

Comment 6

"Conclusion: The authors performed with an extremely minimal content of conclusion. Please improve this section; at least these three pieces of information have to be included: (i) summary of key findings, (ii) contributions to the field, and (iii) recommendations for future research."

Response: The Conclusions section (Section 6) has been rewritten and restructured into exactly the three components requested, each introduced by a bolded lead-in: “Summary of key findings” (the intention→behaviour→passion→commitment trajectory and the structural barriers identified), “Contribution to the field” (the theoretical extension of the TRA, the empirical contribution of an underrepresented population/region, and the practical contribution for training, policy, and financing), and “Recommendations for future research” (empirical testing of propositions Q1–Q6, longitudinal and quantitative designs, cross-regional comparison, and further study of the passion–commitment relationship for the continuance and normative dimensions, which our own Section 2.4/4 already flags as understudied).

Comment 7

"References: Remove the outdated publications. Explore more recent literature, starting from 2019 onwards."

Response: The reference list was revised in the previous round (entries highlighted in turquoise) so that it now consists of works published in 2019 or later, with the large majority from 2021–2026; the only remaining exceptions are national statistical/institutional sources cited for country-level context (e.g., INEGI, 2020; CONAPRED website, 2025), which are retained because they are the official data sources for the statistics reported and have no more recent equivalent. We re-checked the list while preparing this response and confirm no pre-2019 academic citation remains.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses female entrepreneurship thru the lens of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the behavioral intentions that precede and shape entrepreneurial activity. The study views intention not as a static predictor of entrepreneurial behavior, but as a dynamic motivational force that could increase entrepreneurial passion and strengthen organizational commitment throughout the entrepreneurial journey. In this regard, the study has the potential to contribute to the existing literature by expanding the use of TRA in the post entry entrepreneurial context.

Overall, female entrepreneurship is a relevant and timely research topic, especially considering the economic and social contributions of women entrepreneurs to their families, communities and the wider society. The manuscript is mostly based on a good review of the relevant literature and the theoretical background is reasonably well structured. The relevance of the study for practice is also reinforced by the focus on support for women entrepreneurs thru education and training, adequate public policies and improved access to financial resources. However, the manuscript has several sections that need more development and restructuring to improve the clarity and contribution of the paper as a whole.

The Introduction seems to be relatively weak in regard to the scope and contribution of the study. More could be done to develop the relationship between cultural context and entrepreneurship to emphasize the significance of the research. The social and cultural environment can have a significant impact on entrepreneurial behavior and intentions, and thus providing more information on the specific context of the study would help readers understand better the significance of this research. Also the research problem needs to be formulated more clearly. The authors need to explain the main objective of the study and why the selected variables are important and how the variables are theoretically connected. Most importantly, the research gap should be stated explicitly. The gap from literature review is to be inferred by the reader for now. The introduction would benefit from a clearer statement of what previous research has failed to address and how this study addresses this.

A more detailed explanation of the research process would be nice to increase transparency and replicability. The manuscript mentions the use of a semi-structured questionnaire, but more information on the development and content of this instrument is needed. The authors may include in the methodology section a brief presentation of the main topics or dimensions included in the questionnaire. Alternatively, the full questionnaire or a more detailed version could be included in an appendix.

More importantly, the description of the data collection should be clearer. Information on participant selection, research setting, length of data collection and research procedures would enable readers to judge the methodological rigor of the study.

The process of data analysis needs to be explained further, again. The manuscript should clearly explain how the collected data were analyzed and how the main themes/categories were identified. For example, it would be helpful to know how many researchers coded or judged the data, whether they coded the data independently and how disagreements were resolved. Such information would enhance confidence in the reliability of the findings.

The Results section seems a bit disjointed with the large number of subheadings at the moment. Subheadings can enhance readability, but an overuse of subheadings may interfere with the flow of the findings and hinder readers in locating the key results. I suggest the reorganization df this section around some key themes. The authors may also want to include one or more tables that summarize the major findings, themes, and supporting evidence. This would enable a more compact and systematic presentation of the results and would help to avoid repetition in the text.

The integrative model proposed could be also presented at the end of the Results section. The model is presented after the empirical findings, so that it is easier for the reader to see how the model emerges from the analysis. Then in the Discussion section the theoretical meaning and broad implications of the model can be discussed in detail.

The Discussion section needs major reorganization. The main function of a Discussion section is to interpret the results, relate them to prior research and theory, and expand on their larger significance. In the present version, however, after a relatively short introductory discussion there is considerable contextual and statistical information. Some of this information would be better located in the Introduction or other earlier sections of the manuscript. I suggest restructuring the Discussion into three main points: interpretation of the findings, theoretical implications, and practical implications. The authors should begin by interpreting the main findings and discussing whether these findings support, extend or differ from previous research. More attention should be paid further to explain the findings thru the Theory of Reasoned Action and show how the results contribute to the theoretical framework. Second, the theoretical contribution of the study should be more explicitly articulated. Specifically, the authors may explain how the understanding of behavioral intention as a dynamic motivational force rather than a predictor of entrepreneurial behavior contributes to the current applications of TRA in entrepreneurship research. Finally, the practical implications should be worked out more systematically. The manuscript already points to the importance of university training, supportive public policies, access to financing and the strengthening of women’s self-confidence. These are important implications, but they should be more directly related to the empirical results of the study. This would provide further weight to the recommendations and show how the findings could inform entrepreneurship education, policy development and support programs for women entrepreneurs.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for a thorough and constructive reading of the manuscript, and for recognizing the relevance of the topic and the quality of the literature review and theoretical background. We address each substantive recommendation below, following the order in which they appear in the review.

Comment 1

"The Introduction seems to be relatively weak in regard to the scope and contribution of the study... the research problem needs to be formulated more clearly... the research gap should be stated explicitly. The gap from literature review is to be inferred by the reader for now."

Response: This comment led to the most extensive revision in the manuscript. The Introduction (Section 1) was rewritten to develop the cultural and social context of Mexican women’s entrepreneurship more explicitly (traditional gender roles, ENAPROCE 2026 statistics, and the specific context of Cuernavaca, Morelos), and a new, dedicated section, “2. Research Problem and Gap”, was added immediately afterward. This section states the research problem explicitly (the three variables — intention, passion, commitment — have been studied in isolation and mostly in university populations, without examining how they articulate sequentially in the same woman entrepreneur’s trajectory) and states the gap explicitly in its own sentence: “This omission constitutes the research gap that this study seeks to address.” A new subsection, “2.1 Objective and Research Questions”, then states the double objective of the study and the three research questions (PI1–PI3) that operationalize it, so the reader no longer has to infer the gap or the objective from the literature review.

Comment 2

"A more detailed explanation of the research process would be nice to increase transparency and replicability. The manuscript mentions the use of a semi-structured questionnaire, but more information on the development and content of this instrument is needed. The authors may include in the methodology section a brief presentation of the main topics or dimensions... Alternatively, the full questionnaire... could be included in an appendix."

Response: Section 3 (Materials and Methods) already lists, in-text, the guiding question and the full set of follow-up topics used in the semi-structured interview (decision to start the business, actions taken to launch it, origin of the idea, family/friends with businesses, problems faced and how they were resolved, current challenges with employees and clients, and how passion is shared), so the main dimensions of the instrument are transparent in the main text rather than deferred to an appendix. In this revision we additionally made the analytical use of that instrument more transparent by adding the step-by-step flowchart (Figure 2, Section 3.2) showing how the interview guide’s predefined categories fed into coding and the subsequent voice-centred relational analysis, and by adding the investigator-triangulation sentence.

Comment 3

"More importantly, the description of the data collection should be clearer. Information on participant selection, research setting, length of data collection and research procedures would enable readers to judge the methodological rigor of the study."

Response: This information is presented in Section 3 and 3.1: institutional authorization and recruitment through the Business Attraction Centre (CAN) of the Faculty of Accounting, Administration, and Informatics (FCAI-UAEM); the four explicit selection criteria (business owned ≥ 1 year, located in Morelos, age 20–60, female); initial and chain sampling; the interview setting (“a quiet and private setting that fostered open exchange”); the data-collection window (December 2025–February 2026); interview duration (40–90 minutes); recording with consent; and the ethics approval (Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, protocol 143/25, approved 12 November 2025). We reviewed this description against the comment and consider it complete; no additional procedural detail was identified as missing beyond what is now covered in the new Figure 2 flowchart for the analysis stage specifically.

Comment 4

"The process of data analysis needs to be explained further, again... it would be helpful to know how many researchers coded or judged the data, whether they coded the data independently and how disagreements were resolved. Such information would enhance confidence in the reliability of the findings."

Response: In direct response, we added a sentence in Section 3.2 stating that transcripts were read independently by the members of the research team involved in the analysis and that differences in the labelling or scope of a category, theme, or subtheme were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached — i.e., investigator triangulation, consistent with the team-based, iterative coding process already described (predefined categories from the interview guide, four voice-centred relational readings, and emergent subcategories). This sentence is highlighted in green together with the new flowchart (Figure 2) that visualizes the full sequence. Because the exact division of coding labour among the five co-authors is a factual matter internal to the research team, we ask the corresponding/co-authors to confirm that this description matches their actual practice before resubmission (e.g., how many of the five researchers coded independently) so that the statement is fully accurate; we have drafted it to be consistent with everything already reported in the manuscript.

Comment 5

"The Results section seems a bit disjointed with the large number of subheadings at the moment... I suggest the reorganization of this section around some key themes. The authors may also want to include one or more tables that summarize the major findings, themes, and supporting evidence."

Response: Section 4 is organized around the study’s four analytical categories (entrepreneurial behavioural intention, entrepreneurial passion, organizational commitment, and the economic/female-entrepreneurship category), each introduced by a short interpretive paragraph and illustrated with its corresponding table (Tables 2–5) rather than by a long list of subheadings, so the structure the reviewer describes as disjointed corresponds mainly to the density of the tables rather than to subheading proliferation. To give readers the compact, single-glance overview the reviewer requests without shortening the exemplar-quote tables (which we see as a strength of the voice-centred approach), we added a cross-reference in Section 4 to the summary table already available as Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials, which consolidates all categories, themes, and subthemes in one table, and we completed the Supplementary Materials statement in the back matter to describe it properly.

Comment 6

"The integrative model proposed could be also presented at the end of the Results section. The model is presented after the empirical findings, so that it is easier for the reader to see how the model emerges from the analysis. Then in the Discussion section the theoretical meaning and broad implications of the model can be discussed in detail."

Response: This is exactly how the manuscript is organized: the model, grounded in the findings and illustrated in Figure 1, is presented at the end of Section 4 (Results), and its theoretical meaning and implications are then developed in Section 5 (Discussion). In this revision we corrected a numbering inconsistency the reviewer’s comment helped us notice: this subsection was mislabelled “5.1. Integrative model” even though it appears before the “5. Discussion” heading and belongs to the Results; it has been renumbered and re-styled as “4.1. Integrative Model” to remove the ambiguity.

Comment 7

"The Discussion section needs major reorganization... I suggest restructuring the Discussion into three main points: interpretation of the findings, theoretical implications, and practical implications. The authors should begin by interpreting the main findings... Second, the theoretical contribution... Finally, the practical implications should be worked out more systematically..."

Response: We addressed the specific, checkable part of this comment directly: Section 5 now opens with a paragraph that interprets the findings against the three research questions (PI1–PI3), which did not exist before and which anchors the rest of the Discussion. The theoretical contribution is developed in the passages reframing the TRA as part of a broader system (Section 4.1, “This work has argued that the TRA... is insufficient to capture the complexity...” and the following paragraph), and the practical implications for university training, public policy, and financing are developed throughout Section 5 and now stated concisely again in the “Contribution to the field” paragraph of the Conclusions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors:

Thank you for submitting the revised version.
Please find several recommendations to improve the quality of this manuscript:
1. Title: Since the title has been altered, please add "A" before "Qualitative Study" so that "A Qualitative Study"
2. Section 2, including Subsection 2.1, could be merged into Section 1, since it is still related to the Introduction. Subsections 2.2 to 2.7 could be written as Section 2, which is the Literature Review.
3. There are doubled numbering in Subsection 2.3 on page 4.
4. At the end of the current Section 2, there is a theoretical proposition of the model. The authors are strongly encouraged to depict the model in a clear figure. This will enhance the readability of this research.
5. Line 459: Please write concisely: "Tables 2-5 present..."
6. Caption of Tables 2-5: What is the meaning of "Categories y Quotes..."?
7. Since there is only a single Subsection in Section 4, that is Subsection 4.1, it is better to merge it into the main content of Section 4.
8. What do the PIs (PI1, PI2, PI3) stand for for? Usually, we use Research Question (RQ) instead of PI.

Author Response

Please find several recommendations to improve the quality of this manuscript:

Comment 1

Since the title has been altered, please add "A" before "Qualitative Study" so that "A Qualitative Study"

Response:

We appreciate the suggestion, and “A” has been added before “Qualitative study.”

Comment 2

Section 2, including Subsection 2.1, could be merged into Section 1, since it is still related to the Introduction. Subsections 2.2 to 2.7 could be written as Section 2, which is the Literature Review.

Response:

We appreciate the suggestion and have modified the text in accordance with the changes indicated by the reviewer.

Comment 3

There are doubled numbering in Subsection 2.3 on page 4.

Response:

The document is reviewed, and the duplicate numbering is corrected.

Comment 4

At the end of the current Section 2, there is a theoretical proposition of the model. The authors are strongly encouraged to depict the model in a clear figure. This will enhance the readability of this research.

Response:

We appreciate the detailed observation and have created a figure representing the theoretical proposal of the proposed model.

Comment 5

Line 459: Please write concisely: "Tables 2-5 present..."

Response:

We appreciate the observation and have made the change to the lines in question, revising the paragraph to read as follows:
Tables 2 and 3 present the dimension, themes, and corresponding sub-themes for each of the four analytical categories, alongside the participants' responses. Table S1 (Supplementary Materials) includes illustrative quotes reflecting the testimonies, attitudes, thoughts, ideas, and feelings regarding motivations for developing their businesses and the difficulties encountered during implementation, organized according to the dimension, themes, and sub-themes corresponding to each analytical category. Additionally, Table S2 (Supplementary Materials) provides a consolidated summary of the complete structure of dimensions, themes, and sub-themes resulting from the content analysis, offering readers a unique, compact overview of the results presented in this section.

Comment 6

Caption of Tables 2-5: What is the meaning of "Categories y Quotes..."?

Response:

They represent the theme and sub-theme structures that emerged from the content analysis. However, the dimension and the corresponding themes and sub-themes are explained, along with the participants' responses.

Comment 7

Since there is only a single Subsection in Section 4, that is Subsection 4.1, it is better to merge it into the main content of Section 4.

Response:

We appreciate the comment and have made the modification in Section 4.

Comment 8

What do the PIs (PI1, PI2, PI3) stand for for? Usually, we use Research Question (RQ) instead of PI.

Response:

They represent the sequential numbering of each research question; however, we appreciate the comment, and the research questions are now designated as (RQa; RQb; RQc), in the hope that this eliminates any ambiguity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their careful and thorough revision. The manuscript has been considerably revised and in many respects it reads like a new paper. In particular, the Introduction and theoretical parts have been greatly improved. The extra details given in the methodology also add to the robustness of the study. Overall, the manuscript has been much improved. I have a couple of little suggestions which might make it even better.

The tables in the Results section are quite dense and sometimes hard to follow. At present, the Results section is mostly tables, so authors might want to rethink how the findings are presented. Perhaps some of the more detailed tables could be moved to an appendix, leaving only the key tables or summary tables in the main text. The Results section could be more straightforward if the main findings were explained more in the text.

The Conclusion is now quite long; I would recommend moving the discussion of future research to a separate section entitled Future Research after the Limitations section. This would make the Conclusion shorter and more concentrated.

Author Response

Comment 1

The manuscript has been considerably revised and in many respects it reads like a new paper. In particular, the Introduction and theoretical parts have been greatly improved. The extra details given in the methodology also add to the robustness of the study. Overall, the manuscript has been much improved. I have a couple of little suggestions which might make it even better.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer's comments, as they were very helpful in substantially improving the work.

Comment 2

Response:

Thank you for your insightful comment. The tables were revised to present versions that summarize the findings. A paragraph was also added describing the new appendices, which contain the interview information for reference and provide greater transparency in the table preparation.

Tables 2 and 3 present, for each of the four analytical categories, the corresponding dimension, themes, and subthemes, along with participant responses. Table S1 (Supplementary Materials) provides illustrative examples of the testimonies, attitudes, thoughts, ideas, and feelings regarding participants' motivations for developing their businesses and the difficulties they encountered in their implementation. Table S2 (Supplementary Materials) additionally offers a consolidated summary of the complete dimensions-theme-subtheme structure that emerged from the content analysis, providing readers with a single, concise overview of the results reported in this section.

Comment 3

Response:

We appreciate the observation and have made the suggested change.