EmDigital to Promote Digital Entrepreneurship: The Relation with Open Innovation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors.
Congratulate them first of all for the idea, proposal and work done.
Although it is true that it is a qualitative investigation, the foundation and analysis work is of quality and rigorous.
Not knowing what other evaluators may require, perhaps in order not to be left alone with the model, an assessment can be made by a larger group of experts on the adequacy of each of the competencies, sub-competencies and indicators with a Likert-type scale, so that we can analyze the relationship between the various elements. It would consist of seeing if an AFE and CFA validate the proposal based on the evaluations of the experts who responded to said scale.
However, for me the way you have worked it is enough and the proposal has enough quality for publication in its current state.
I hope that the next phases of the project will allow us to have a standardized and validated instrument for the EmDigital model.
Best regards
Author Response
We attach a file with our answers. Thanks and best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity of reading your manuscript. I consider it interesting but seriously underdeveloped. Here are some point-by-point observations and suggestions:
- Please avoid using abbreviation in the Abstract or at least explain them, e.g.EntreComp, DigComp, EmDigital
- Explain abbreviations at their first entry
- The literature is mixed up with Introduction
- The paper is linked with some project but it seems that the paper presents and describes this project, being more a report that an article, at least in this stage
- There are not provided RQ/hypotheses; there is no proper research without hupotheses or at least some reserach questions
- The paper needs further develpments, it is quite far from a scientific article; the tables look like a research proposal
- Discussion and Conclusions are mixed together, the discussion is quite weak, there are no implications provided
Good luck!
Author Response
We attach a file. Thanks and best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all, thank you so much for your work.
In my opinion the Digital Competence background must be improved is important to take into account more frameworks than DigComp. Take a look to models like: Somerville, Smith i Macklin (2008); Mozzilla Web Literacy...Also it's important to take into account that there ara previos versions of DigComp (DigComp, DigComp2.0, DigComp 2.1).
Also It's important to describe the profile of the experts participants.
In general is a good work but it has to be improved in the DC direction.
Author Response
We attach a file. Thanks and best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for providing the revised version of the manuscript. The paper has been consistently improved and gained clarity and rigour.
Author Response
Thank you fro your valuable comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you so much for the changes and the work. In my opinion it's quite deficient in the DC aspect.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
