Entrepreneurial Competence in Higher Education: An Assessment of the Importance Attributed to It by Final-Year Undergraduate Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript ‘The Entrepreneurial Competence in Higher Education: An Assessment of the Importance Attributed to It by Final-Year Undergraduate Students’ submitted to World. I enjoyed reading the manuscript and found it to be an informative study of the importance of entrepreneurial competence that attributed to it by undergraduate students.

 

Overall, the research addresses a relevant and timely topic, beginning with questions that warrant deeper investigation. These research questions should be further developed within a clear theoretical and conceptual framework. While an empirical analysis has been conducted to support the research questions, I strongly recommend that the authors explicitly state their hypotheses. The results are interpreted and discussed appropriately; however, the overall reasoning lacks a natural flow. The manuscript shows potential but requires significant improvement in accordance with the comments provided below.

 

1. With regard to the Introduction, the first two paragraphs should be strengthened by incorporating additional arguments and examples that highlight the significance of entrepreneurial competence and the relevance of this research. There are a lot of published work, such as Atienza-Barba et al. (2025; DOI: 10.1007/s11365-025-01084-7) or Cardella et al. (2024, DOI: 10.1007/s11365-024-00945-x), to strengthen the narrative on this.
2. In the introduction, it is very worthwhile to introduce readers in more detail to the social and cultural context in which the university student finds himself.
3. The introduction contains some not covered topics. For example, “Expectancy-Value Theory and Self-Determination Theory social”. Please explain.
4. Please add a new Section 2 containing the theoretical framework and hypothesis. I strongly encourage you to identify the hypotheses of your study. A descriptive analysis is of little interest to the audience of this type of journal.
5. You stated (page 5): ‘The second block included two dependent variables: … Competence [1–22] – PROFICIENCY’. Why did you not include the results of the second dependent variable?
6. The sample has been chosen to demonstrate that it is representative of the society being studied. We would also recommend adding a table with accurate information about the technical specifications of the study and another table with the comparative demographics between the population and sample.
7. Please show the validation of the scale used to measure entrepreneurial competence. Why these items and not others?
8. The data are for the 2021-2022 academic year, have you not considered updating them?
9. The discussion and conclusion sections would benefit from stronger integration of theoretical references to support and contextualize the findings.
10. Why do you explicitly list the journal where the results of the previous literature have been published in section 5? Please remove the journals.

 

We hope you find the above comments useful and we wish you the best of luck with developing the paper further.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study takes 267 senior undergraduate students from Deusto University in Spain as samples. Through questionnaire surveys and statistical analysis methods, it explores the degree to which students value entrepreneurial ability as an interdisciplinary competence and its relationship with variables such as gender, department, and campus.

 

Overall, I believe the paper can reach the level for publication. However, minor revisions must be made before it can be published. The following are suggestions for revision. If some issues cannot be modified, the author can also mention them in the research limitations.

 

First, the definition of "entrepreneurial ability" is ambiguous, and the measurement dimensions of "entrepreneurship" and "intrapreneurship" have not been clearly distinguished. Moreover, there is a lack of theoretical definitions for core concepts such as "transformative attitude".

 

Second, the sample size was only 267 individuals (with a coverage rate of 17%), and the distribution among departments was uneven (for instance, the proportion of the Engineering College was not specified), and no analysis was conducted on non-response bias.

 

Third, the importance of entrepreneurial ability was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. However, the descriptive statistics in Table 6 show that the mean for females is 3.11, which contradicts the claim in the main text that the overall mean is 3.96. The data are inconsistent.

 

Fourth, ordinal regression did not report model fit, coefficient significance tests, and did not verify the proportional odds assumption.

 

Fifth, at the practical level, the policy recommendations failed to respond to reality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper titled “The Entrepreneurial Competence in Higher Education: An Assessment of the Importance Attributed to It by Final-Year Undergraduate Students.” The topic you address is highly relevant, and the title successfully sparks interest by suggesting a focused exploration of how final-year students evaluate the entrepreneurial competence acquired throughout their academic journey. Given the definition of entrepreneurial competence—as the blend of skills, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors that enable individuals to identify opportunities, take initiative, and turn ideas into action, particularly in a business context—readers naturally expect to see this concept clearly and consistently developed in the manuscript.

However, the connection between the title and the structure of the paper is not fully realized in its current form. Below are several observations that may help guide a thoughtful revision:

• Abstract (p. 1, lines 8–10): The sentence “This study examines how final-year undergraduate students at the University of Deusto (Spain) perceive the importance of entrepreneurship as a transversal competence” introduces potential conceptual confusion. While translation nuances may contribute to this ambiguity, it is essential to clarify the distinction between entrepreneurship (as a business process) and entrepreneurial competence (as a skill set). Additionally, the inclusion of a figure in the abstract is unconventional and might be better suited for the literature review.
• Introduction. The current structure of the introduction also appears overly extended, which may affect information clarity; (p. 3, lines 81–83): The term entrepreneurship is used again in a manner that could benefit from greater precision. On page 4, RQ1 and RQ2 refer to entrepreneurial competences in the plural form, while the title emphasizes the singular entrepreneurial competence. Furthermore, in RQ3, entrepreneurship reappears as a possible synonym for competence, which may blur the conceptual distinctions.
• Methodology: Table 1 does not fully align with its intended purpose, as it lacks a dedicated column describing transversal competences, and cites two sources: University of Deusto, 2022 and Own elaboration. Subsection 2.1 (Population and Sample) would benefit from more comprehensive details regarding the study population and sample. On page 5, lines 201–205, the presentation of dependent variables—such as ‘Competence [1–22] – IMPORTANCE’ and ‘Competence [1–22] – PROFICIENCY’—is promising, but we encourage a clearer emphasis on how these perceived proficiency levels are reflected in the results, particularly regarding entrepreneurial competence.
• Discussion: This section introduces concepts such as intrapreneurship and entrepreneurial intention, which may feel tangential or overly ambitious relative to the study’s original scope. Please explicitly include both the theoretical and practical contributions of your study, as well as its limitations, in the revised version.

Final Remark: We suggest a thorough revision that strengthens conceptual clarity, improves alignment between title and content, and adheres more closely to academic writing conventions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all of this reviewer's suggestions, and the manuscript is publishable in its present form.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and thoughtful feedback throughout the review process. We are pleased to know that the revisions have satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised, and we appreciate the recommendation for publication in its current form.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the revised manuscript titled “The Entrepreneurial Competence in Higher Education: An Assessment of the Importance Attributed to It by Final-Year Undergraduate Students.” I appreciate the improvements made to the first version. However, further refinement in the second version is recommended to enhance conceptual clarity, ensure stronger alignment between the title and the content, begin with research hypotheses and bring the writing more fully in line with academic writing rules.

Next, I will address the following aspects that prevent me from recommending publication in its current form:

• On page 4, lines 182–183, you wrote the following: “In line with this framework, the following hypotheses were formulated to guide the empirical analysis.” What framework are you referring to? From the text, it seems to be the University of Deusto’s MAUD model, represented in Figure 1: “University learning process. Synthesis of work processes and assessment of entrepreneurial competence.” Despite the title, in Figure 1: a. Entrepreneurial competence does not appear; instead, it refers to entrepreneurship. b. It is mentioned that the study concerns two campuses (see page 6, lines 229–230), which contradicts Table 2. Sample, where six faculties are listed. c. The figure mentions all degrees, whereas the title specifies Final-Year Undergraduate Students.

All these contradictory and unclear aspects need to be revised.

• The research hypotheses presented on pp. 4–5 and pp. 184–192 do not appear to stem from theoretical frameworks, models, or previous studies, but rather seem to be derived from the authors' own results. For example, in order to maintain a neutral tone—grounded in theory and clearly testable, without appearing as though the authors have already reviewed the data—Hypothesis H1 could be reformulated as follows: Students are expected to perceive entrepreneurial competence as moderately to highly important, yet they may rate it lower than other transversal competences in terms of relevance to their academic goals. In all four hypotheses, you refer to entrepreneurial competence—which is appropriate given that this is the focus of the paper’s title—but throughout the rest of the manuscript you use the term entrepreneurship, which, in my view, is incorrect. Furthermore, you have not revised Table 1, which, in my opinion, does not provide a description of the competences but rather presents a list. Another example: Hypothesis 3 (H3): Students’ perception of the importance of entrepreneurial competence will vary significantly depending on faculty affiliation. However, the manuscript does not provide sufficient justification for using faculty affiliation as a differentiating factor. It is unclear which disciplines are represented across the six faculties, nor is there any description of how the educational structure within each faculty might influence students’ perceptions of entrepreneurial competence. Existing literature more commonly links entrepreneurial competence to academic fields or domains of study, which would offer a more meaningful framework for analysis. Furthermore, referencing faculties merely by numbers (1 to 6) lacks clarity and leaves the reader without a contextual understanding of the organizational or curricular distinctions among them.
• I again recommend revising the manuscript with the aim of correcting all conceptual inconsistencies across its various sections and integrating the tables more cohesively into the body and structure of the paper (rather than simply inserting them as currently done, e.g., Table 1). I also recommend revising subsections 4–6 to align with the changes made in subsections 1–3.

I hope that my comments will help the authors in developing an improved version of their article, and I wish them much success in this endeavor.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We thank the reviewer for the thorough and thoughtful review of our manuscript entitled “The Entrepreneurial Competence in Higher Education: An Assessment of the Importance Attributed to It by Final-Year Undergraduate Students.” We are grateful for the recognition of the improvements made and appreciate the specific comments aimed at enhancing the conceptual clarity and coherence of our study. We address the reviewer’s points below and propose a series of modifications to strengthen the manuscript accordingly.

Here is the point-by-point response following the format you requested, addressing the reviewer's detailed comments:

Comment 1:
“On page 4, lines 182–183, you wrote the following: ‘In line with this framework, the following hypotheses were formulated to guide the empirical analysis.’ What framework are you referring to?”

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the reference to “this framework” was vague and required clarification. Therefore, we have revised the sentence to explicitly state the frameworks in question: Expectancy-Value Theory, Self-Determination Theory, the EntreComp framework, and the University of Deusto’s MAUD model.

Besides, as suggested in Comment 3 We have reformulated all four hypotheses to ensure they are clearly derived from the theoretical frameworks and stated in a neutral, testable tone.
The revised hypotheses are now located in red on pages 4-5, lines 184–215.

Comment 2:
“From the text, it seems to be the University of Deusto’s MAUD model, represented in Figure 1. Despite the title, in Figure 1: a. Entrepreneurial competence does not appear; instead, it refers to entrepreneurship. b. It is mentioned that the study concerns two campuses (see page 6, lines 229–230), which contradicts Table 2. Sample, where six faculties are listed. c. The figure mentions all degrees, whereas the title specifies Final-Year Undergraduate Students. All these contradictory and unclear aspects need to be revised.”

Response 2:
Agree. We have revised Figure 1 in the following ways: 

• The label “entrepreneurship” has been replaced with “entrepreneurial competence” to reflect the core concept of the manuscript.
• We have clarified in the figure caption that the six faculties are distributed across the two campuses.
• The phrase “all degrees” has been replaced with “final-year undergraduate students” to ensure consistency with the sample.
• We have detailed the discipline of each of the six faculties analysed
  
  

These revisions can be found on page 5 in red, across the Figure, under Figure 1 and in the surrounding explanatory paragraph.
Comment 3:
“The research hypotheses presented on pp. 4–5 and pp. 184–192 do not appear to stem from theoretical frameworks... For example, Hypothesis H1 could be reformulated...”

Response 3:
We appreciate this valuable suggestion. In line with comment 1, we have reformulated all four hypotheses to ensure they are clearly derived from the theoretical frameworks and stated in a neutral, testable tone.
The revised hypotheses are now located in red on pages 4-5, lines 184–215.

Comment 4:
“In all four hypotheses, you refer to entrepreneurial competence—which is appropriate given that this is the focus of the paper’s title—but throughout the rest of the manuscript you use the term entrepreneurship, which, in my view, is incorrect.”

Response 4:
Thank you for highlighting this important inconsistency. We agree and have thoroughly revised the manuscript to consistently use the term “entrepreneurial competence” instead of “entrepreneurship,”.
Changes have been made throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Abstract (page 1), Introduction (pages 1–4), Theoretical Framework (page 4), and Discussion (pages 13-14). All terms now align with the title and conceptual focus.

Comment 5:
“You have not revised Table 1, which, in my opinion, does not provide a description of the competences but rather presents a list.”

Response 5:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have now expanded the description of each competence in the following paragraph of Table 1,  to include clearer descriptions of each competence.
This revision appears in red on page 7, lines 259-266, under Table 1.

Comment 6:
“Hypothesis 3 (H3): Students’ perception of the importance of entrepreneurial competence will vary significantly depending on faculty affiliation... It is unclear which disciplines are represented across the six faculties...”

Response 6:
So sorry, but we could not replace the anonymous “Faculty 1–6” labels with the actual names (Faculty of Health Sciences, Social Sciences and Business Studies, Social Sciences and Humanities, Law, Education and Sport, and Engineering) as the data must be presented in aggregate form to ensure participant confidentiality and comply with ethical research standards.

In line 280 the six different faculties were mentioned. However, we appreciate this comment and have taken two actions, we added the six faculties in the image (see Figure 1 on page 5), and in the formulation of the H3 (lines 203-206.

Comment 7:
“I again recommend revising the manuscript with the aim of correcting all conceptual inconsistencies across its various sections and integrating the tables more cohesively into the body and structure of the paper.”

Response 7:
Thank you. We have revised the manuscript to ensure that each table is introduced in the main text before it appears and followed by interpretative commentary. We have tried to improve integration and supports the logical flow.

Comment 8:
“I also recommend revising subsections 4–6 to align with the changes made in subsections 1–3.”

Response 8:
Thank you. We have carefully revised Sections 4 (Discussion), 5 (Future Research), and 6 (Contributions and Limitations) to ensure alignment with the revised terminology, hypotheses, and theoretical framework.

These changes are found in red on pages 13-15 of the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the improvements made to the second version of your manuscript.

I will recommend publication, but I strongly urge you to resolve in the final version all aspects related to formatting, and at least one important issue related to the content—namely, the faculty/study domain of the surveyed students. Please revise Table no. 2 in such a way that it clearly shows which are the 6 faculties, in line with Figure 1. Then clarify why Table 10 includes only 5 faculties and not 6. In the discussion section, specify the relevance of the field of study and how students’ perceptions differ; compare this with results from previous studies.

I wish you great success in your research work!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We thank the reviewer for the thorough and thoughtful review of our manuscript entitled “The Entrepreneurial Competence in Higher Education: An Assessment of the Importance Attributed to It by Final-Year Undergraduate Students.” We are grateful for the recognition of the improvements made and appreciate the specific comments aimed at enhancing the conceptual clarity and coherence of our study. We address the reviewer’s points below and propose a series of modifications to strengthen the manuscript accordingly.

Here is the point-by-point response following the format you requested, addressing the reviewer's detailed comments:

Comments 1:
I appreciate the improvements made to the second version of your manuscript. I will recommend publication, but I strongly urge you to resolve in the final version all aspects related to formatting, and at least one important issue related to the content—namely, the faculty/study domain of the surveyed students. Please revise Table no. 2 in such a way that it clearly shows which are the 6 faculties, in line with Figure 1. Then clarify why Table 10 includes only 5 faculties and not 6. In the discussion section, specify the relevance of the field of study and how students’ perceptions differ; compare this with results from previous studies.

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. However, we are not able to display the names of the six faculties in line with those used in Figure 1: (1) Health Sciences, (2) Social Sciences and Business Studies, (3) Social Sciences and Humanities, (4) Law, (5) Education and Sport, and (6) Engineering. The data must be presented in aggregate form, in accordance with the terms to which participants consented when completing the survey.

Regarding Table 10, we have clarified in a footnote to the table that although six faculties were included in the sample, one had to be excluded from the ordinal logistic regression analysis due to insufficient or missing data for statistical modeling. This clarification can be found on page 13, in red, footnote of Table 10.

To address the second part of your comment, we have expanded the Discussion section (page 14, paragraph 2) to highlight the role of academic discipline in shaping perceptions of entrepreneurial competence. We also compare these findings with prior studies that explore disciplinary influences on students’ attitudes toward transversal competences.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf