Developing an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Framework for Student-Led Start-Ups in Higher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is extremely pertinent to academic innovation ecosystems, higher education policy, and entrepreneurship education. It provides a unique, stakeholder-informed framework that triangulates the opinions of founders, instructors, and students. In this way, the paper fills a vacuum in the literature by examining the understudied but important topic of how various actors within HEIs view start-up success factors.
The literature review is thorough and properly referenced, citing both recent and seminal research. Nevertheless, it is suggested to consider strengthening the conceptual connection between the ecosystem literature and the context unique to HEIs (e.g., more emphasis on entrepreneurial capital and institutional embeddedness).
Regarding methods and design of the research, the descriptive cross-sectional design is suitable for exploratory stakeholder perception research. However, external validity is limited since a single Lithuanian HEI is used.
Regarding the results, they are logically categorised, linked to earlier research, and clearly interpreted in the discussion. Important conclusions are reached about the underappreciated function of infrastructure and legal support in contrast to the overemphasis on social and human capital.
However, it is recommended to include a more critical analysis of the reasons behind the low ranking of certain conventional institutional factors by examining cross-group differences in more detail, paying particular attention to the reasons behind founders' greater variability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is interesting and it investigates how different stakeholders perceive key success factors for student-led start-ups in higher education institutions. The purpose is clearly stated even from the abstract. The paper is well-structured, using a validated survey and triangulated stakeholder analysis to build a three-tier framework of perceived success factors. However, the authors should have mentioned the period during which they conducted the empirical investigation. The literature review part offers a consistent background for the empirical research. However, based on the literature review, the authors should have developed some research hypothesis that they should have tested and validate or invalidate them. One of the main contribution of this study is identifying a mismatch between institutional support and what stakeholders - especially students - view as critical, with an emphasis on human and social capital over more traditional resources, such as infrastructure or funding. Yet, the study is limited by its single-institution scope. The conclusions are supported by the results and the practical recommendations are clear and actionable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe
The paper is excellent written.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors***It is necessary to revise the methodology. The study employed a two-stage sampling strategy. The first stage of the sampling technique involves selecting a Lithuanian higher education institution. Please justify the sampling technique used to choose this institution, specifying the criteria that were applied. The second step is to select respondents in three categories. Please explain the population and sampling technique, along with the selection criteria for each group.
***Please explain whether this study is a case study; if yes, it could not be explained in general for Lithuanian higher education. Please add in the limitations and recommendations for further study.
***What are the education and business theories adopted for academic entrepreneurial ecosystems? Please justify (it is still unclear).
***The data collection period is necessary.
***The instrumentation on how to develop the questionnaire for 34 items on how to test the content validity, such as Indexes of Item-Objective Congruence for Multidimensional Items (valid +1, invalid -1, or unsure 0), is an example that is required. And please provide experts in this evaluation with criteria for selection.
***According to Table 1A, it needs the foundational theories in education or business. Additionally, for the previous studies that support the questionnaire items, please include references behind each item in the questionnaire's development. Lines 112-140 still require theories and variables in this study, as shown in Figure 3 (page 12).
***The analysis aimed to identify patterns of agreement and disagreement between stakeholder perspectives; please justify the scale (such as the Likert Rating Scale or others) and the meaning of each scale and the interpretation with references to previous studies to support it. The max scale ranges from 1-4; please justify.
***The reviewer suggests removing wording modeling; only descriptive analysis is inappropriate for the modeling. SEM or a more comprehensive analysis is recommended for further studies to address the study's limitations in modeling.
***Please ensure that Figure 3 has reviewed all related theories and variables. In the discussion section, please ensure that Figure 3 and all tables are involved in the discussion.
***The conclusion aims to explain how to improve the outcome based on theories or variables in this study.
***Please check grammar.
***It is recommended to add scholarly papers in reputable journals in 2021-2025.
Comments on the Quality of English Language***Please check grammar.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The area that you sought to explore is interesting and it is widely acknowledged that existing support mechanisms are not helpful in addressing the specific needs of student entrepreneurs. Overall great work. But please find my comments below which can strengthen the manuscript.
In Table 1, you summarise the “most frequently cited success factors” in the literature relevant to student-led start-ups in HEIs. However, there are other factors that are also considered important in the literature. So please clarify the methodology used to identify and justify the selection of these particular factors as the "most frequently cited"?
Also you stated that “Student entrepreneurs typically face a wide range of barriers, including limited access to capital, weak networks, insufficient real-world experience, and gaps in entrepreneurial knowledge and competencies. These limitations are often compounded by a lack of institutional alignment between theoretical instruction and the demands of venture creation.” So it would be good to analyse how your results compare with existing institutional structures and what concrete and practical recommendations can be offered for HEIs to enhance their entrepreneurial support mechanisms.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors***The finalized questionnaire was administered between March and May 2024 (?) via an online survey administered through Google Forms, which ensured secure and anonymous participation. However, please note the approval date: November 4, 2024 (?). In this case, it is necessary to provide the figure of the approval date document in comparison to the data collection period in Google Forms. Data collection could not commence until ethical approval had been obtained.
***Please check Tables 2-5; the heading is the max score (or it should be mean).
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for identifying the discrepancy. The originally stated dates mistakenly referred to 2024 instead of 2025. We confirm that ethical approval was obtained on 4 November 2024, prior to data collection activities. The expert panel validation of the survey instrument was conducted in January and February 2025, and online data collection followed from March to May 2025. The manuscript was submitted to the journal on 20 May 2025. The relevant sections of the manuscript have been corrected to reflect this timeline (see updated Sections 3.4 and 3.6). All procedures complied fully with institutional and international ethical standards, including the GDPR, and no data was collected prior to receiving ethical clearance. We affirm that there was no breach of academic ethics.
The column heading “Max Score” in Tables 2–5 has been corrected to “Mean Score” to accurately reflect that the values represent the average agreement scores across stakeholder groups. This clarification has been made throughout the tables in the Results section to ensure accuracy and consistency.
