Digital and Corporate Strategy in Bio-Health Start-Ups: Andalusia Health Technology Park (2025)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article is generally well-structured and addresses a relevant topic, demonstrating a clear mixed-methods design that combines quantitative web analytics and qualitative content analysis. While the theoretical background is adequately presented, it remains largely descriptive and would benefit from stronger integration and clearer positioning within existing scholarly debates. The absence of explicitly stated research questions or hypotheses slightly weakens the analytical focus, although the methodology itself is appropriate and sufficiently explained. The findings are clearly presented through tables and descriptive analysis, but deeper critical interpretation is limited. Referencing is adequate, though not always fully integrated into the argument. Overall, the conclusions are consistent with the results, particularly regarding B2B digital communication patterns, but they would be strengthened by a more critical reflection on limitations and a more nuanced analytical depth.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a relevant subject and has potential. The references are adequate and updated. However, there are several elements to consider, namely the need to clearly identify a specific research gap that this article intends to address, as well as its contribution to the field of knowledge. This should already be made evident in the abstract, and then further explored in the introduction.

Detailed comments:

The introduction is rather short. It should include some information about the article’s structure and the research question / gap it intends to address.

The text in the last bullet in the introduction (l. 35-38) should not be a part of the previous listing, but rather the beginning of a new paragraph, seeing that it provides a definition of the concept of start-up.

line 43: It is not clear what is meant by ‘The company’s report,…’. Is it ‘companies’, rather than ‘company’s…’, perhaps? Even so, it would need to be more detailed. What companies are the author(s) referring to?

line 74-77: the sentence is convoluted, and that hinders understanding: ‘As noted by López-Navarrete, López-Cepeda and Álvarez-Ruíz (2019), the originator of the ‘Lean Startup’ method defines the foundation of a startup as turning ideas into products, gauging how consumers respond, and learning when to pivot or persevere (Ries, 2011).’ When reading this, it is not clear who the ‘originator of the Lean Startup Method’ is until we reach the end of the sentence.

line 110-111: The sentence should not begin as a listing: ‘Digital strategy: When discussing the digital strategy of start-ups, we must not lose sight of the importance of controlling costs (the main driver of their profitability).’ None of the other paragraphs begins like this.

After line 124, there should be a paragraph summarising the main points of the literature review and easing it into the methodology section. As it stands, the transition is quite abrupt.

 

Methodology:

line 154 spelling mistake: ‘Cuantitative’

line 171-173: The author(s) state: ‘The control of all the variables comprising the qualitative analysis is carried out manually, and an AI assistant is only used to combine part of the analysis and provide a specific report, which is attached as an appendix.’ I believe there should be more information on the kind of AI used for this purpose and which part of the analysis is combined (how is this done and what is exactly meant by ‘combine’?)

In the Methodology section, I am having some problems with the objectives, or, at least, with the way they are described. Three objectives are enounced in this section. However, none of them is an objective per se, in the sense that they are not research questions or research gaps. They are methodological options or methodological steps which must be taken to achieve an objective, but they are not objectives. 

1 - To define the areas of healthcare on which their innovation, products and services are focused.

2- Quantitatively collect and evaluate data from the websites of the selected start-ups 180 using variables relating to user behaviour or site performance.

3- Conduct a qualitative analysis of the start-ups via their corporate websites, taking into account the following dimensions: visual identity, corporate discourse (vision, mission, values, social commitment), tone and style of the message, history, and content regarding the human team.

What is missing here is the answer to the question: in order to do what, exactly? What is the author(s)’ purpose in doing so?

Fig. 2: The legends are still in Spanish

Important: the selection criteria and time span should be more clearly defined.

Fig. 1 (which appears after Fig. 2 – please correct) is in Spanish. I understand it was not elaborated by the author(s), but it should be translated.

I found the conclusion a bit short and vague. I think it can be improved by including the following elements: retrieving the research questions/objectives and confirming that they have been answered (or, if not, why); indicating the limitations of the present study; suggesting future research possibilities based on the present findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some syntactic issues which should be corrected. Some of the material (especially in the Figures) is still in Spanish.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf