Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The importance of this manuscript for entrepreneurship education

This manuscript will provide a broader insight for university educators in fostering a generation of entrepreneurial graduates from all fields of study. Currently, there are still many educators who think that Entrepreneurship Education is a business education.

Course Description

To make the pedagogical model designed and implemented in this study easier for readers to understand, it is recommended that in the part 2.1. Course Description (lines 122-155), the authors are able to describe the model more clearly, structured, and if any, equipped with a flow chart.

Data collection and analysis

When authors mention that they adopted a mixed-methods design (line 310), it should be also explained which type of mixed-methods design used in this study, whether convergent, explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential, or other design. Furthermore, based on the specific type of mixed method design, the authors, then, explain in part 3. Results (line 375 etc.) how authors integrate quantitative and qualitative data.

To align the content with the subtopic, i.e., "Data Collection and Analysis" (line 309), explain how the quantitative data from 212 university educators were analyzed. Qualitative data, as already explained, was analyzed using thematic analysis (line 339).

Sample profiles

For ethical reasons, explain clearly how the authors recruited participants to obtain a sample with the profile described in lines 360-374.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A strong theoretical background and application-oriented activities make the study quite valuable. However, I have a few suggestions for improving the study. For example, many paragraphs address multiple phenomena; let's restructure each paragraph so that it has a single main idea. Also, instead of making references at the end of paragraphs, let's use an original statement that summarizes or evaluates that paragraph. The section titled “Data Collection and Analysis” seemed confusing to me. In particular, provide more systematic information about which scales you used and the validity and reliability indicators. Finally, your qualitative findings are too descriptive. I expect deeper inferences in line with the nature of qualitative research. At this point, I strongly recommend coding and identifying themes. Structuring the discussion and conclusions section by synthesizing quantitative and qualitative findings will enhance the quality of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please specify how your variables competence and confidence were operationalized, preferably using which items.
2. In regards to the qualitative part of your study, please provide more details on the coding process.
3. Please provide more information on the content/curriculum of the entrepreneurial teaching course. How does this relate to entrepreneurship education for students (rather than for teachers)?
4. The link between RQ1/RQ2 and the Results/Discussion sections could be made more explicit, for example, by using subheadings or short signposting sentences that show where each RQ is addressed.
5. In the limitations section, the following issues should be added: a) The Norwegian university provides a single-institution context, b) competence, confidence, and intentions rely on self-reports rather than observed changes in teaching practice or student outcomes, c) lack of longitudinal data on whether intentions translate into sustained teaching change, d) potential social desirability and halo effects, given that course designers also appear to be the evaluators. – Please also derive future research opportunities based on these.
6. Your reference list is quite short and should be extended, given the rich literature on entrepreneurship education (also for educators).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some typos

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the time and effort the author(s) invested in their skillful revision. All my comments were addressed in a convincing way. Therefore, from my point of view, the paper can be accepted for publication.

Keep up with the good work!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some typos