Entrepreneurial Abilities and Business Performance: Enacting Business Survival Paradigm from Electronics Informal Market, Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an important topic for many developing countries, with significant implications for the entire ecosystem - economic, legal, political, social, etc. Nevertheless, the lenses proposed by the paper are weak. The theoretical framework, which should set the framework for the discussion concentrates on  how social networks, community trust, and cultural values are the basis for legitimacy and sustainability in informal entrepreneurship. While this might be true, the arguments are rather superficial, and this does not reflect the complexity of the phenomenon. This affirmation might be true for any type of institution. Therefore, it hardly can unveil the particular aspects of the investigated sector. One solution might be to specifically discuss the peculiarities of this theory in the case of informal entrepreneurship. 

No discussion is actually considered on the traits of informal entrepreneurship, except for some general definitions and a few arguments in the middle of the paper. The concept might be a little explained in the introductory section, I believe. Also, detailed discussion might consider the drivers of informal entrepreneurship. More consideration for personal motivations and constraints (besides the personal risk-taking which is discussed) should be considered. Also, most importantly, societal and political drivers are highly significant especially for understanding a specific country situation. These might be much more significant in explaining why informal economy is higher in certain countries and sectors compared to others. Some general arguments are made, such as "Employment is gradually coming to an end in various sectors of the economy," which might be true. However, this is connected with the growing of informal entrepreneurship, which is not always the case. Solid arguments might be considered. This might be true in some countries, while in others, employements and employees are just changing/transforming/adapting inside the formal economy. 

I suggest carefully revising all the ideas and arguments and writing the thesis clearer. For instance, the "Issue description" section states that the lack of a clearly defined aim and strategic framework for informal businesses hinders their ability to expand and compete with formal enterprises due to limited access to resources, risk-taking constraints, and insufficient data on effective entrepreneurial strategies in developing economies. This seems to be true, but it is not clear how is it related to the core of the investigation, to the thesis of the study. The conceptual framework in the paper is not discussed besides the general presentation of each component. But the mechanism considered to be proven is not argued. 

In general, I stress that even though the paper contains many valuable ideas, the line of argumentation is weak. It should be rewritten to a large extent to establish a sharp line of inquiry and completely align the conceptual dimension with the methodological inquiry. 

The methodological section is elaborated but confusing. The analysis of the results does not correspond with the stated quantitative method of inquiry. These parts should be completely rewritten. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is carelessly written, particularly in the first part. Punctuation rules are not well observed, and there are numerous unnecessary spaces between words. It is recommended that the manuscript be carefully reviewed once again to ensure adherence to the journal's recommended citation style.

Author Response

Comment 1: The study addresses an important topic for many developing countries, with significant implications for the entire ecosystem - economic, legal, political, social, etc. Nevertheless, the lenses proposed by the paper are weak. The theoretical framework, which should set the framework for the discussion, concentrates on how social networks, community trust, and cultural values are the basis for legitimacy and sustainability in informal entrepreneurship. While this might be true, the arguments are rather superficial, and this does not reflect the complexity of the phenomenon. This affirmation might be true for any type of institution. Therefore, it hardly can unveil the particular aspects of the investigated sector. One solution might be to specifically discuss the peculiarities of this theory in the case of informal entrepreneurship. 

Response 1: Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and constructive comments. I deeply appreciate the time and insight you have offered, particularly in highlighting the broader significance of the study as it relates to developing countries and the multiple layers, economic, legal, political, and social, that the topic touches upon.

Your observations regarding the theoretical framework are well-taken. I acknowledge that while the paper aimed to capture the foundational role of social networks, community trust, and cultural values in informal entrepreneurship, the current write-up has filled in these aspects that were indeed falling short in articulating the nuances and specificities of these dynamics within the context of informal enterprises.

Furthermore, I revised the theoretical framework by more explicitly discussing how these social elements uniquely manifest and function within the informal entrepreneurial ecosystem. For instance, I will delve deeper into how community-based legitimacy operates in the absence of formal regulatory backing or how trust becomes a substitute for legal contracts in informal markets. I will also incorporate more grounded, sector-specific examples to distinguish the informal sector from broader institutional frameworks. This can be located in line 128 - 200

Also, I ensured that the revised version better reflects the complexity of the phenomenon by integrating a multidimensional perspective that situates informal entrepreneurship within its peculiar socio-economic constraints and adaptive mechanisms. Once again, thank you for your critical yet respectful feedback it provides a valuable path toward strengthening the clarity, depth, and relevance of the study

 

Comment 2: No discussion is actually considered on the traits of informal entrepreneurship, except for some general definitions and a few arguments in the middle of the paper. The concept might be a little explained in the introductory section, I believe. Also, detailed discussion might consider the drivers of informal entrepreneurship. More consideration for personal motivations and constraints (besides the personal risk-taking, which is discussed) should be considered. Also, most importantly, societal and political drivers are highly significant especially for understanding a specific country situation. These might be much more significant in explaining why informal economy is higher in certain countries and sectors compared to others. Some general arguments are made, such as "Employment is gradually coming to an end in various sectors of the economy," which might be true. However, this is connected with the growing of informal entrepreneurship, which is not always the case. Solid arguments might be considered. This might be true in some countries, while in others, employment and employees are just changing/transforming/adapting inside the formal economy. 

Response 2: Thank you so much for your helpful feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to point out areas that need improvement. You are right that the paper did not explain the traits of informal entrepreneurship well enough. I made this clearer, with better examples and focused discussion in the introduction and main sections. I also saw the need to go beyond just talking about personal risk-taking. There were other important reasons people turn to informal work, like lack of job opportunities, access to credit, or support systems, as well as bigger issues like politics and the economy. I included more of these in the revised version. And yes, the point about employment trends was handled more carefully. I rewrote that part and supported it with stronger, more accurate information. This can be found in lines 5, 414 to 425 and 528 to 538. Thanks again for your honest comments; they’ve helped me see how to make the paper stronger

Comment 3: I suggest carefully revising all the ideas and arguments and writing the thesis clearly. For instance, the "Issue description" section states that the lack of a clearly defined aim and strategic framework for informal businesses hinders their ability to expand and compete with formal enterprises due to limited access to resources, risk-taking constraints, and insufficient data on effective entrepreneurial strategies in developing economies. This seems to be true, but it is not clear how it is related to the core of the investigation, to the thesis of the study. The conceptual framework in the paper is not discussed beyond the general presentation of each component. But the mechanism considered to be proven is not argued. 

Response 3: Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful comments. I truly value the time you have taken to read through the work and offer such meaningful observations. Your feedback is both insightful and constructive, and I receive it with the utmost respect and appreciation. You are right in pointing out the need for greater clarity and coherence in the articulation of ideas, particularly in aligning the "Issue description" with the central thesis of the study. I recognise that while the section touches on essential challenges facing informal businesses, such as limited resources, constrained risk-taking, and the absence of strategic frameworks, the connection to the study’s main research problem and objectives must be made much more explicit.

To address this, I revised the section to clearly articulate how these challenges are not just general observations, but also made key references to the key entry points into understanding why informal entrepreneurs operate the way they do and how this connects to the broader theoretical and empirical thrust of the study. I ensured that the argument led the reader naturally via explanations toward the research questions and the intended contribution of the work. This is reflected in lines 346 to 537

Similarly, I acknowledge the comment regarding the conceptual framework. It is indeed important not only to present the components but also to critically discuss their interrelationships and how they function within the specific context of informal entrepreneurship. I strengthened this section by clearly arguing the mechanisms and pathways through which the proposed constructs interact, drawing from both theory and relevant empirical studies. The entire literature review was rewritten in this regard. Again, I deeply appreciate your comments as they have helped me see where the study needs refining, and I have revised it in a way that enhances both clarity and academic rigor.

 Comment 4: In general, I stress that even though the paper contains many valuable ideas, the line of argumentation is weak. It should be mostly rewritten to establish a sharp line of inquiry and completely align the conceptual dimension with the methodological inquiry. 

Response 4: Overall, I appreciate the effort and the wealth of ideas presented by you, sir. I love the fact that you have engaged thoughtfully with the subject matter. However, to fully unlock the potential of this work, I believe the argumentation needs to be significantly strengthened, and this has been done. In its current form, the paper has now become of benefit to a more coherent and focused line of inquiry. I have revisited the structure and flow of the argument, ensuring that the conceptual framework aligns more closely with the methodological approach. With a clearer narrative and tighter integration of key components, the paper has a much more compelling and impactful contribution to the field

Comment 5: The methodological section is elaborated but confusing. The analysis of the results does not correspond with the stated quantitative method of inquiry. These parts should be completely rewritten. 

Response 5: Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful feedback. I appreciate your careful review and the clarity you have provided regarding the methodological section. I understand your concerns about the alignment between the stated quantitative approach and the analysis presented. Your observation is valuable, and I agree; revisiting and rewriting these sections strengthens the overall coherence of the study. I am committed to making the necessary revisions to ensure that the methodology and analysis reflect the intended research design. Your input has given me a clearer direction, and I am grateful for it.

Comment 6: The paper is carelessly written, particularly in the first part. Punctuation rules are not well observed, and there are numerous unnecessary spaces between words. It is recommended that the manuscript be carefully reviewed once again to ensure adherence to the journal's recommended citation style.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your honest and constructive feedback. I truly appreciate your close reading of the manuscript. I acknowledge the issues you have raised regarding the writing quality, especially in the first part of the paper. I take full responsibility for the lapses in punctuation, spacing, and adherence to citation guidelines. I have carefully revised the manuscript, paying close attention to the journal's formatting and style requirements to ensure clarity and professionalism throughout. Your remarks are very helpful in guiding these improvements, and I am grateful for the opportunity to refine the work further.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) I recommend that the author clearly state the research’s objective in the abstract, as it currently appears vague.
2) The article focuses primarily on informal entrepreneurship in Nigeria. I suggest including the word “Nigeria” in the title to enhance visibility in search engines for papers related to the country.
3) In Row 259, I recommend adding a table that shows Nigeria’s inflation evolution over the past five years. This inclusion will help determine whether the hyperinflation issue is structural or temporary.
4) In Row 281, please correct the small typo regarding the years (2009) and (2013). It seems these refer to two works by the same author published in different years. If that’s the case, the reference should be formatted as Webb et al. (2009, 2013) to avoid confusion. Alternatively, if there is a different author for the 2013 reference, please clarify.
5) Row 499 mentions “Southern Nigeria,” while Row 506 refers to “Southwest Nigeria.” Please confirm which term is correct.
6) Some information in Figure 2 is cut off starting from Row 645. Please make the necessary corrections.
7) Although it is understood that the authors produce the tables and graphs, the source should be included for all visual elements in the article.
8) In Row 1084, the study’s limitations have not been included. Please address this.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding

 

Comment 1: I recommend that the author clearly state the research’s objective in the abstract, as it currently appears vague

Response 1: I appreciate and agree with the reviewer's comment and have made amends to this by reflecting the objective in the abstract in lines 17 to 18 in the abstract and from 110 to 117 under the introduction aspect of the writeup

 

Comment 2: The article focuses primarily on informal entrepreneurship in Nigeria. I suggest including the word “Nigeria” in the title to enhance visibility in search engines for papers related to the country.

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding the title. In response, I have now included “Nigeria” to reflect the study’s primary focus on informal entrepreneurship within the country. I agree that this adjustment not only enhances the specificity of the research but also improves its visibility and accessibility in search engines for readers and scholars interested in Nigeria-focused studies. I truly appreciate your input, which has contributed meaningfully to refining the paper’s overall clarity and reach.

 

Comment 3: In Row 259, I recommend adding a table that shows Nigeria’s inflation evolution over the past five years. This inclusion will help determine whether the hyperinflation issue is structural or temporary.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In line with your recommendation, I have incorporated both a table and a graph into the study to enhance clarity and support the presentation of key findings. I appreciate your thoughtful input, which has helped strengthen the visual and analytical depth of the manuscript.

comments 4: In Row 281, please correct the small typo regarding the years (2009) and (2013). It seems these refer to two works by the same author published in different years. If that’s the case, the reference should be formatted as Webb et al. (2009, 2013) to avoid confusion. Alternatively, if there is a different author for the 2013 reference, please clarify.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in Row 281. The typographical issue regarding the years (2009) and (2013), which referred to the same author, has now been corrected to ensure clarity and avoid any potential confusion. I truly appreciate your careful review and attention to detail, which has helped improve the overall accuracy of the manuscript.

Comment 5:  Row 499 mentions “Southern Nigeria,” while Row 506 refers to “Southwest Nigeria.” Please confirm which term is correct.

Response 5: Thank you for highlighting the inconsistency between Row 499 and Row 506. Upon review, I confirm that “Southwest Nigeria” is the correct reference, as it accurately reflects the specific focus of the study. This correction has now been made to ensure consistency and clarity. I sincerely appreciate your attention to detail, which has contributed to strengthening the precision of the manuscript.

Comment 6: Some information in Figure 2 is cut off starting from Row 645. Please make the necessary corrections.

Response 6: Thank you for drawing my attention to the issue with Figure 2, beginning around Row 645, where some information appeared to be cut off. I have carefully reviewed and made the necessary corrections to ensure that the figure is now complete and presented. Your observation is very helpful, and I truly appreciate your attention to detail in helping me improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

 

Response 6:
Comment 7: Although it is understood that the authors produce the tables and graphs, the source should be included for all visual elements in the article.

 

Response 7:
Comment 8: In Row 1084, the study’s limitations have not been included. Please address this.

General Response:
I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and supportive stance throughout the review process. Your insightful comments reflect a clear understanding of the qualitative techniques employed in this study, as well as the overall trajectory I am pursuing. Your feedback has been invaluable in helping me clarify and strengthen the direction of our work, and I am grateful for the constructive engagement you have provided.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Sirs,

The objective of the article is not clearly stated, although it can be inferred that it is interesting because it is related to entrepreneurship and its improved performance. However, for it to be published, the authors must make the following improvements:

- The paper is too long. In science, it is written more concisely.

- The abstract must explain the four basic points clearly: introduction and importance and need for the research, methodology, results, and discussion/conclusions. Figures are also not provided. A comma must be removed on line 26.

- The research gap is not clearly observed.

- The sections of the literature review are not well linked.

- The end of the paper (discussion and conclusions, in that order) is poorly organized, and the theoretical contributions, practical implications drawn from the work, limitations, and future lines of research must be clearly and concisely presented.

- There are citations that are in the text and not in references (Akaabre, 2025)

- The citations need to be updated.

Best Regards.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Sirs,

I am not an expert in English, but I understood the authors' text.

Best Regards.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.

Comment 1: The objective of the article is not clearly stated, although it can be inferred that it is interesting because it is related to entrepreneurship and its improved performance. However, for it to be published, the authors must make the following improvements:

Response 1: I appreciate and agree with the reviewer's comment and have made amends to this by reflecting the objective in the abstract in lines 17 to 18 in the abstract and from 110 to 117 under the introduction aspect of the writeup

Comment 2: The paper is too long. In science, it is written more concisely.

Response 2: Thank you so much for your thoughtful and constructive comment. I sincerely appreciate the time and insight you have devoted to reviewing this work. While I understand and respect your perspective, I kindly offer a different viewpoint. Given the qualitative nature of this study, offering well-considered and carefully justified responses to each parameter is not only intentional but also necessary.

More so, the focus on the informal sector, a space whose practices and legitimacy are not yet fully embraced within mainstream academic discourse, demands an extra layer of justification for every concept introduced. The nuances of this field often require validation through established literature to support and clarify its evolving stance. As such, each part of the study is thoughtfully anchored in existing scholarship and empirical insights to ensure clarity and credibility.

The manuscript has also benefited from a process of ongoing refinement, informed by constructive feedback from several Q1 journals. Although earlier versions were not accepted, the detailed suggestions offered significantly shaped the present draft. Furthermore, to gain an additional layer of objectivity, I engaged a blind reviewer whose independent reading helped affirm the direction and coherence of the study.

For context and alignment, I have also attached examples of other qualitative studies that follow similar patterns. I remain deeply grateful for this opportunity to improve the manuscript through such meaningful and engaging scholarly dialogue.

Comment 3: The abstract must explain the four basic points clearly: introduction and importance, and need for the research, methodology, results, and discussion/conclusions. Figures are also not provided. A comma must be removed on line 26.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. The abstract has been revised to incorporate your suggestions, and the updated content can be seen between lines 9 and 35. Additionally, the comma you pointed out has been removed as advised. I appreciate your careful review and constructive input.

Comment 4: The research gap is not clearly observed.

Response 4: Thank you for your helpful observation. In response to your suggestion, the research gap has now been articulated and is reflected between lines 98 and 109. I appreciate your guidance, which has helped enhance the clarity and focus of this section

Comment 5: The sections of the literature review are not well linked.

Comment 5: Thank you for your insightful feedback. I have worked to ensure that the sections of the literature review are now more effectively linked, with clear connections between the opening and closing themes of each section. To further enhance the coherence, I also sought feedback from a colleague who offered a fresh perspective, and I am pleased to share that his review was highly positive. I appreciate your guidance, which has been instrumental in improving the flow and clarity of this section.

Comment 6: The end of the paper (discussion and conclusions, in that order) is poorly organized, and the theoretical contributions, practical implications drawn from the work, limitations, and future lines of research must be clearly and concisely presented.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In line with your suggestion, I have reorganized the conclusion and discussion sections to more clearly highlight the theoretical contributions, practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research. These aspects are now concisely presented in the following sections: lines 1139–1154, 1172–1187, 1230–1260, 1347–1355, and 1379–1447. I truly appreciate your insights, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and structure of this part of the paper.

 

Comment 7: Some citations are in the text and not in references (Akaabre, 2025)

Response 7: Thank you for your careful attention to the references. I have ensured that all the identified citations are now accurately included in the reference list. Additionally, I have removed citations like (Akaabre, 2025) as suggested. Your feedback has been invaluable in helping me maintain the accuracy and consistency of the manuscript.

Comment 8:  The citations need to be updated.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. The citations have been carefully updated to reflect the most accurate and current sources. I appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped me ensure the accuracy of this section.

General Response:
I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and supportive stance throughout the review process. Your insightful comments reflect a clear understanding of the qualitative techniques employed in this study, as well as the overall trajectory I am pursuing. Your feedback has been invaluable in helping me clarify and strengthen the direction of our work, and I am grateful for the constructive engagement you have provided.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present version of the manuscript has improved and takes into consideration many of the previously mentioned concerns. The readability and the flow of arguments were ameliorated. Still, some additional improvements might be considered. Here are some main aspects

• The abstract could be further improved to synthesize the main findings, especially their relevance and impact.
• The central thesis of the research needs more clarification 
• A discussion of the findings within the specific economic framework considered might be more extensive. 

Further formal optimization might also be considered after a final reading to optimize the presentation of data (for instance, the evolution of inflation is presented in two ways - a table and a graph. I would recommend keeping only the figure). Also, the APA citation system should be strictly followed (there are issues to consider, especially in the final reference list). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I'm not the best judge of English standards. Still, I observed a lot of misuse of commas, and sometimes the text is not fluid. I believe the paper needs further proofreading. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The present version of the manuscript has improved and takes into consideration many of the previously mentioned concerns. The readability and the flow of arguments were ameliorated. Still, some additional improvements might be considered. Here are some main aspects

• The abstract could be further improved to synthesize the main findings, especially their relevance and impact.
• The central thesis of the research needs more clarification 
• A discussion of the findings within the specific economic framework considered might be more extensive. 

Response 1:

1. Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and constructive comments. I deeply appreciate the time and insight you’ve invested, particularly in highlighting the broader significance of the study. In response, the abstract has been carefully revised in accordance with your invaluable guidance, now presenting a clearer synthesis of the main findings (lines 83–85), the relevance (lines 86–89), and the impact (lines 91–94). I remain truly grateful for your ongoing feedback in meeting the high scholarly standards expected.
2. Thank you so much for your helpful feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to point out areas that need improvement. In response, the central thesis has been carefully refined to improve clarity and sharpen the focus, particularly in lines 269–284. I am truly grateful for your continued and critical review, as your feedback is invaluable in ensuring that the revisions meaningfully strengthen the core argument and meet the highest standards of scholarly excellence.
3. Thank you for your helpful observation. In response to your valuable suggestion, the discussion of the findings has been expanded and more deeply situated within the relevant economic framework. These refinements can be found in lines 1445–1479.

 

 

Comment 2: Further formal optimization might also be considered after a final reading to optimize the presentation of data (for instance, the evolution of inflation is presented in two ways - a table and a graph. I would recommend keeping only the figure).

Response 2: Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and constructive observation regarding the presentation of data. I truly appreciate your suggestion to retain either the table or the graph in illustrating the evolution of inflation. Your recommendation is valuable, as it recognizes that while the figure offers a quick and accessible visual summary, the table provides a detailed breakdown that supports deeper analysis and comparison.

On another note, the second reviewer suggested that both formats should be retained, with the intention of enriching the study by catering to different reader preferences. I fully agree with this perspective, as it allows for both an at-a-glance overview and a more detailed exploration of the data. I humbly seek your approval of this viewpoint, as I believe the dual presentation enhances both clarity and analytical depth. I am grateful for your insight, which has certainly contributed to strengthening the communicative value of the study’s findings.

 

Comment 3: Also, the APA citation system should be strictly followed (there are issues to consider, especially in the final reference list). 

Response 3: Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and constructive observation regarding the citations and references. I truly appreciate the attention you gave to this important aspect of the manuscript. In response, the APA citation style has been carefully reviewed and corrected in line with the required standards. Particular attention was given to ensuring consistency throughout, especially within the final reference list which has been effected from line 1837 to 2180. I am grateful for your detailed feedback, which has helped to strengthen the overall accuracy and scholarly integrity of the work.

 

Comment 4: I'm not the best judge of English standards. Still, I observed a lot of misuse of commas, and sometimes the text is not fluid. I believe the paper needs further proofreading. 

Response 4: Thank you very much for your honest and thoughtful feedback. I sincerely appreciate the time and care you dedicated to reviewing the manuscript, particularly your attention to its flow and readability. Your observations regarding the misuse of commas and occasional lack of fluency were both valid and greatly appreciated.

In response, I have conducted a thorough and careful proofreading of the manuscript, focusing specifically on punctuation, clarity, and overall coherence. Some of the earlier issues were due to overlapping revisions that had not been fully streamlined in the tracked version. To address this, I have included a clean, revised copy of the manuscript for your clearer review. This version has also been reviewed using Grammarly and checked by a language expert to ensure improved accuracy and fluency. This is reflected in the clean copy that has been attached from line 2533 - 4069

I wholeheartedly agree that clear and effective language is essential to strong scholarly communication, and I’m truly grateful for your feedback, which has significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Sirs, 

The authors have made a great effort and have satisfied all my requirements. However, I note that there are two abstract and two points 5.2. I imagine it is a mistake. 

Best Regards.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Sirs, 

I have understood the text, but I am not qualified to assess this aspect. 

Best Regards.  

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors have made a great effort and have satisfied all my requirements. However, I note that there are two abstract and two points 5.2. I imagine it is a mistake. 

Best Regards.  

Response 1: Thank you sincerely for your careful and attentive review. I greatly appreciate your encouraging words regarding the effort put into the revision and your confirmation that the key requirements have been met.

You were absolutely right to point out the duplication of the abstract and the repeated section labeled 5.2. These were indeed unintentional errors. The incorrect version has now been crossed out, including the second instance of 5.2, to ensure clarity and structural consistency.

To further support transparency and facilitate your review, I have included both a tracked version showing all corrections made, as well as a clean copy of the final manuscript. This is reflected in the clean copy that has been attached from line 2533 – 4069. I am truly grateful for your detailed attention, which has helped improve the quality and presentation of the paper.

 

Comment 2: I have understood the text, but I am not qualified to assess this aspect. 

Response 2: Thank you sincerely for your openness and honesty. I truly appreciate the time you’ve taken to engage with the manuscript, and I’m grateful that you were able to understand the text. Even if this particular aspect falls outside your primary area of assessment, your willingness to review and offer feedback is deeply valued. Your perspective contributes meaningfully to the rigor and refinement of the work, and I remain thankful for your thoughtful involvement in the review process.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf