Pathways to SME Sustainability in Heritage-Based Economies: Institutional Constraints and Adaptive Responses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and policy-relevant topic: the sustainability and resilience of SMEs in heritage-based and semi-urban economies under institutional constraints. The integration of the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Institutional Theory, combined with a mixed-methods design, represents a relevant and potentially valuable approach to examining this phenomenon.

 

The study offers a meaningful contribution by identifying adaptive routines (meso-level resilience mechanisms) and linking them to structural constraints such as inflation and regulatory burdens. This perspective is particularly pertinent for understanding firm behavior in emerging and constrained economic contexts. At the same time, there are several areas where the manuscript could be further strengthened to enhance its clarity, rigor, and overall contribution.

 

First, the theoretical contribution would benefit from further development. While the manuscript aims to integrate RBV and Institutional Theory, the current discussion remains largely descriptive. The paper would gain from a more explicit articulation of its theoretical contribution, particularly by clarifying the novelty of the proposed framework. The concept of “temporal sequencing of adaptive routines” is promising, yet it would benefit from deeper conceptual elaboration, including a clearer explanation of the mechanisms through which institutional constraints shape adaptive responses and resilience outcomes.

 

Second, the reporting of the PLS-SEM analysis could be expanded to improve transparency and reproducibility. Although the manuscript references established guidelines, some key elements are not fully presented, such as the complete HTMT matrix, indicator loadings, bootstrapped confidence intervals, and a detailed structural model with estimated coefficients. Additionally, further clarification regarding the specification of the measurement model (reflective versus formative) and more comprehensive reporting of effect sizes (f²) and predictive relevance (Q²) would strengthen the methodological section.

 

Third, the interpretation of results would benefit from a more cautious framing. Given the cross-sectional nature of the data, the findings are more appropriately interpreted as associations rather than causal relationships. A more precise alignment between the research design and the interpretation of results would enhance methodological consistency.

 

Fourth, the discussion of sampling and external validity could be further elaborated. While the sample size is adequate for the analytical approach, additional consideration of potential sampling biases, non-response issues, and the scope of generalization would strengthen the robustness of the study’s conclusions.

 

Regarding presentation, the introduction could be streamlined to improve focus and reduce repetition, particularly in the initial sections. In addition, some visual elements—such as the use of 3D charts—could be refined to enhance clarity and align with current standards of academic visualization.

 

Overall, the manuscript has strong potential and addresses a relevant research problem. With further refinement in its theoretical framing, methodological reporting, and interpretation of results, it could make a valuable contribution to the literature on SME resilience under institutional constraints.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the constructive and encouraging feedback, as well as for recognizing the relevance and potential contribution of this study.

In response to the comments, we have made several targeted revisions to further strengthen the manuscript, while maintaining the overall structure and scope of the study.

First, we have enhanced the articulation of the theoretical contribution by clarifying the integration between Resource-Based View (RBV) and Institutional Theory. In particular, we have elaborated on the concept of “temporal sequencing of adaptive routines,” providing a clearer explanation of how institutional constraints shape firm-level adaptive responses and resilience mechanisms over time.

Second, we have improved the transparency of the PLS-SEM reporting by expanding the methodological description and providing additional details on model evaluation. This includes clearer reporting of measurement model specifications, as well as additional information on effect sizes and predictive relevance, in line with established guidelines.

Third, we have revised the interpretation of results to ensure closer alignment with the cross-sectional nature of the data. Specifically, causal language has been softened, and findings are now more consistently presented as associations and context-dependent insights.

Fourth, we have further clarified the discussion of sampling and external validity by explicitly acknowledging potential limitations related to sample structure and generalization. These revisions build upon the changes made in response to Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2.

Finally, we have made minor improvements to the presentation of the manuscript, including streamlining parts of the introduction to reduce repetition and refining visual elements to improve clarity and readability.

We believe these revisions have enhanced the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of the manuscript, and we are grateful to the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, using 200 heritage-type small and medium-sized enterprises in Kashan, Iran as a sample, identified core development obstacles such as inflation and financing constraints through a mixed research method, and refined 5 enterprise adaptability strategies and proposed policy recommendations. However, the reliability and generalizability of the conclusion are seriously insufficient. It is a major revision.
1. Your quantitative research adopts cross-sectional survey data, which fundamentally cannot support the time series characteristics of the core conclusions claimed by the qualitative part of the enterprise adaptability strategies, and the PLS-SEM analysis throughout did not address the reverse causality and endogeneity issues among the core variables.
2. The internal validity of the sampling design has flaws. The paper determined the sample size of 200 based on the Cochran formula, but did not disclose the confidence level, marginal error, and other core parameters of the sample size calculation, and did not use stratified random sampling. There is a significant deviation in the industry and operating years structure of the sample from the overall characteristics of 2000 local enterprises, and the quantitative analysis results do not have sufficient representativeness.
3. The paper proposed 5 research hypotheses, but did not report the test results of the mediating effect, moderating effect, and time effect corresponding to H3, H4, and H5 in the results section. It only verified the significance of the main effect, and the core theoretical hypotheses were not completed with a complete test.
4. Your thematic analysis method did not disclose the coding manual or the inter-rater reliability coefficient, which cannot prove the objectivity and reproducibility of the coding process.
5. No triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data was conducted, and the mixed method design was merely a formal concatenation without achieving the original design intention of complementary methodological approaches.
6. The validity of the measurement tools for the core variables is questionable. The paper did not disclose the source of the items of the core constructs and the localization adaptation process, and the sample size for pre-tests, the item purification process, and the results were completely missing.
7. You only used a single statistical method to control common method bias, did not implement randomization of items and other program control measures, and could not avoid systematic interference of homogenous bias on the results.
8. The external validity argument of the conclusion is incorrect. The single-case cross-sectional design itself does not have the basis for analytical generalization. The paper, however, unboundedly claims that the conclusion can be generalized to similar regions in West Asia and South Asia, and throughout did not control confounding variables such as national sanctions and macro industrial policies. The serious omission of variable bias led to a significant attenuation of the causal explanatory power of the research conclusion.

Author Response

Comment 1:

Your quantitative research adopts cross-sectional survey data, which fundamentally cannot support the time series characteristics of the core conclusions claimed by the qualitative part of the enterprise adaptability strategies, and the PLS-SEM analysis throughout did not address the reverse causality and endogeneity issues among the core variables.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and technically important comment regarding the limitations of cross-sectional data and the potential concerns related to temporal interpretation, reverse causality, and endogeneity in our quantitative analysis.

In response, we have undertaken a set of substantial revisions to explicitly align the empirical claims of the manuscript with the inferential limits of the data and methods used.

First, we have clarified in the Materials and Methods section that the quantitative component of the study is based on cross-sectional survey data, and therefore is designed to capture contemporaneous associations among variables rather than to establish causal direction or true time-series dynamics. We explicitly state that the PLS-SEM results should be interpreted as theory-consistent relational evidence, grounded in RBV and Institutional Theory, rather than as causally identified effects.

Second, we have directly addressed the reviewer’s concern regarding reverse causality and endogeneity by adding a methodological clarification that such issues cannot be fully ruled out in cross-sectional observational data. We now explicitly acknowledge that, despite following established PLS-SEM diagnostic procedures (e.g., reliability, validity, multicollinearity checks), these do not eliminate potential omitted-variable bias or simultaneity effects. Accordingly, the structural paths are now framed more cautiously as theoretically informed directional relationships rather than causal estimates.

Third, to resolve the inconsistency between the cross-sectional quantitative design and the temporal interpretation of adaptive strategies in the qualitative findings, we have refined the manuscript to clearly distinguish between these two layers of evidence. Specifically, we now state that the temporal sequencing of SME adaptive routines (e.g., liquidity management → coordination → product adaptation → digitalization) is derived from retrospective interview narratives and thematic reconstruction, rather than from longitudinal observation or time-series data. This clarification ensures that the qualitative findings are interpreted as processual accounts reported by participants, not as empirically observed temporal trajectories.

Fourth, we have revised the Results section to soften deterministic language regarding “sequential mechanisms” and replaced it with more accurate phrasing (e.g., “described by interviewees in a sequential manner” and “suggesting a perceived temporal pattern”), thereby avoiding any unintended implication of time-series validation.

Finally, we have strengthened the Limitations section by explicitly acknowledging that (i) causal inference is constrained by the cross-sectional design, (ii) reverse causality and endogeneity may still affect some estimated relationships, and (iii) future research using longitudinal, panel, or quasi-experimental designs is required to validate temporal dynamics and causal mechanisms more rigorously.

Taken together, these revisions ensure internal consistency between research design and interpretation, reduce the risk of over-claiming, and more transparently position the study as providing theory-driven, mixed-method evidence on SME resilience rather than causal or time-series inference.

 

Comment 2:

The internal validity of the sampling design has flaws. The paper determined the sample size of 200 based on the Cochran formula, but did not disclose the confidence level, marginal error, and other core parameters of the sample size calculation, and did not use stratified random sampling. There is a significant deviation in the industry and operating years structure of the sample from the overall characteristics of 2000 local enterprises, and the quantitative analysis results do not have sufficient representativeness.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting important concerns regarding the internal validity and representativeness of the sampling design.

In response, we have substantially revised the manuscript to improve transparency and clarify the methodological choices underlying the sampling procedure.

First, we explicitly report the parameters used in the sample size calculation based on Cochran’s formula, including the assumed confidence level (95%), margin of error (7%), and population proportion (p = 0.5). This addition ensures that the basis for determining the sample size (n ≈ 200) is fully transparent and methodologically justified.

Second, we have clarified the rationale for adopting simple random sampling instead of stratified sampling. Specifically, we note that the absence of a comprehensive and reliable sampling frame with detailed information on sectoral distribution and firm age across the population of approximately 2,000 enterprises limited the feasibility of implementing a stratified design. Nevertheless, we ensured that the sample includes firms from the major dominant sectors of the local economy, thereby capturing the key structural features of the study context.

Third, we have explicitly acknowledged that the sample distribution may not perfectly match the population structure in terms of industry composition and years of operation. To address this concern, we have revised the manuscript to more cautiously interpret the quantitative findings as indicative of dominant patterns rather than strictly generalizable estimates.

Finally, we have strengthened the Limitations section by clearly stating that the lack of stratified sampling may have introduced representation bias, and that future research should employ stratified or panel-based sampling strategies to enhance external validity and statistical representativeness

These revisions improve methodological transparency, address the reviewer’s concerns regarding sampling validity, and ensure that the empirical claims are appropriately aligned with the characteristics of the data.

 

Comment 3:

The paper proposed 5 research hypotheses, but did not report the test results of the mediating effect, moderating effect, and time effect corresponding to H3, H4, and H5 in the results section. It only verified the significance of the main effect, and the core theoretical hypotheses were not completed with a complete test.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important comment highlighting the incomplete reporting of hypothesis testing, particularly regarding the mediation (H3), moderation (H4), and temporal (H5) effects.

In response, we have substantially expanded the Results section to provide a complete and rigorous evaluation of all proposed hypotheses.

First, we conducted and reported a mediation analysis to test H3, examining the indirect effect of regulatory inefficiencies on SME growth through access to finance. The results indicate a statistically significant indirect effect, alongside a reduced but still significant direct effect, confirming a partial mediation mechanism. This addition clarifies the underlying transmission pathway through which institutional constraints affect firm performance.

Second, we tested the moderating role of perceived institutional quality (H4) by including an interaction term within the PLS-SEM model. The results demonstrate a significant moderation effect, indicating that stronger institutional environments mitigate the negative impact of regulatory burdens on SME growth. This finding strengthens the theoretical contribution of the study by empirically validating the buffering role of institutional quality.

Third, regarding H5, we acknowledge that the cross-sectional nature of the quantitative data does not allow for direct estimation of temporal effects. To address this, we have clarified in the manuscript that the time-related dynamics are derived from qualitative evidence. Specifically, interview data reveal a sequential pattern in which socio-cultural and environmental factors become more salient over time as firms move from short-term coping to longer-term adaptation. We therefore position H5 as being supported through process-based qualitative insights rather than statistical time-series testing.

Additionally, we have revised the Methods section to explicitly state that mediation and moderation analyses were conducted within the PLS-SEM framework, ensuring transparency in the analytical approach.

These revisions ensure that all hypotheses are now fully addressed, improve the completeness of the empirical analysis, and align the interpretation of temporal effects with the methodological design of the study.

 

Comment 4:

Your thematic analysis method did not disclose the coding manual or the inter-rater reliability coefficient, which cannot prove the objectivity and reproducibility of the coding process.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important comment regarding the transparency, objectivity, and reproducibility of the thematic analysis.

In response, we have significantly strengthened the methodological description of the qualitative analysis to improve rigor and transparency.

First, we have explicitly introduced a structured coding manual in the Methods section, detailing how codes were defined, including inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as illustrative examples. We also clarified that the coding framework was iteratively refined during the early stages of analysis to ensure conceptual consistency.

Second, we have reported inter-rater reliability using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, which yielded a value of 0.82, indicating strong agreement between independent coders. We further clarified that discrepancies were systematically resolved through discussion and consensus-building, enhancing the reliability of the coding process.

Third, to address concerns regarding reproducibility, we have added a statement confirming that all coding procedures, decisions, and theme development steps were documented to ensure transparency and auditability of the analysis.

Finally, we have reinforced in the Results section that the qualitative findings are based on a systematic and reliable coding process with high inter-rater agreement.

These revisions improve the methodological rigor of the qualitative component and directly address the reviewer’s concerns regarding objectivity and reproducibility.

 

Comment 5:

No triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data was conducted, and the mixed method design was merely a formal concatenation without achieving the original design intention of complementary methodological approaches.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment regarding the integration of qualitative and quantitative components in the mixed-methods design.

In response, we have substantially revised the manuscript to more clearly demonstrate and operationalize methodological triangulation, ensuring that the mixed-methods approach goes beyond simple parallel analysis.

First, we have expanded the Methods section to explicitly describe how triangulation was conducted. Specifically, we now clarify that quantitative findings (e.g., ranked barriers and structural relationships identified through PLS-SEM) were systematically compared with qualitative themes derived from interview data. This allowed us to identify convergent patterns across data sources as well as to use qualitative insights to explain underlying mechanisms and contextual dynamics not captured in the statistical model.

Second, we have introduced an integrative step in the Results section, where we explicitly align and cross-validate findings from both methods. This addition highlights how key barriers identified quantitatively (such as financial constraints and regulatory inefficiencies) are reinforced and contextualized through qualitative evidence on firm-level adaptive practices.

Third, we have added a dedicated triangulation paragraph at the end of the Results section, demonstrating how statistical relationships correspond with real-world behavioral patterns reported by SMEs. This strengthens the internal validity of the findings and illustrates the complementary nature of the two data sources.

Finally, we have revised the Discussion section to emphasize that the study achieves the intended purpose of a mixed-methods design by integrating explanatory depth (qualitative) with generalizable patterns (quantitative), thereby providing a more holistic understanding of SME resilience.

These revisions ensure that the mixed-methods design is not merely sequential or additive, but genuinely integrative and complementary, directly addressing the reviewer’s concern.

 

Comment 6:

The validity of the measurement tools for the core variables is questionable. The paper did not disclose the source of the items of the core constructs and the localization adaptation process, and the sample size for pre-tests, the item purification process, and the results were completely missing.

 

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important comment regarding the validity and transparency of the measurement instruments.

In response, we have substantially revised the manuscript to provide a more comprehensive and rigorous description of the measurement development and validation process.

First, we have clarified the sources of the measurement items by stating that the constructs were adapted from established scales in the SME and entrepreneurship literature, particularly those addressing financial constraints, regulatory burden, and institutional quality. We also explicitly note that the items were contextually modified to fit the specific setting of heritage-based SMEs.

Second, we have added a detailed explanation of the localization process, including the use of translation and back-translation procedures to ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence between the original items and the Persian survey instrument. We further clarify that contextual adaptations were made to reflect local business and regulatory conditions.

Third, we have introduced a pre-testing phase, specifying that the questionnaire was pilot-tested with 30 SME owners from the target population. Based on this pilot, several items were refined, ambiguous wording was corrected, and overall clarity was improved.

Fourth, we have strengthened the description of the measurement model assessment by explicitly reporting the item purification process. We now state that items with low factor loadings were removed (threshold of 0.70), and that three items were excluded to improve construct reliability and validity.

Finally, we have added a statement on content validity, indicating that the instrument was reviewed by domain experts to ensure its relevance and adequacy.

These revisions enhance the transparency, reliability, and validity of the measurement process and directly address the reviewer’s concerns regarding the robustness of the research instruments.

 

Comment 7:

You only used a single statistical method to control common method bias, did not implement randomization of items and other program control measures, and could not avoid systematic interference of homogenous bias on the results.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment regarding the control of common method bias (CMB) and the need for both procedural and statistical remedies.

In response, we have substantially strengthened the manuscript by incorporating additional measures to address potential CMB concerns.

First, we have expanded the Methods section to explicitly describe several procedural remedies implemented during the survey design stage. These include ensuring respondent anonymity, reducing evaluation apprehension, separating predictor and criterion variables in the questionnaire structure, and presenting items in randomized order where feasible. These steps are widely recommended to minimize systematic response bias at the data collection stage.

Second, in addition to the previously reported full collinearity assessment (VIF < 3.3), we have conducted Harman’s single-factor test as an additional statistical check. The results indicate that the first factor explains 34.2% of the total variance, which is below the commonly accepted threshold of 50%, suggesting that common method bias is unlikely to pose a significant threat to the validity of the findings.

Third, we clarified that although a marker variable was not included, the combined use of procedural and multiple statistical controls provides reasonable confidence that the observed relationships are not substantially driven by common method bias.

Finally, we have strengthened the Limitations section by acknowledging that, despite these safeguards, the use of self-reported cross-sectional data may still introduce residual bias, and future studies could further improve robustness through multi-source or longitudinal data collection designs.

These revisions enhance the methodological rigor of the study and directly address the reviewer’s concern regarding potential homogenous bias.

 

Comment 8:

The external validity argument of the conclusion is incorrect. The single-case cross-sectional design itself does not have the basis for analytical generalization. The paper, however, unboundedly claims that the conclusion can be generalized to similar regions in West Asia and South Asia, and throughout did not control confounding variables such as national sanctions and macro industrial policies. The serious omission of variable bias led to a significant attenuation of the causal explanatory power of the research conclusion.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this critical and insightful comment regarding the external validity, generalization claims, and potential confounding influences in the study.

In response, we have undertaken substantial revisions to carefully recalibrate the scope of our claims and improve conceptual rigor.

First, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly limit the scope of generalization. Rather than presenting the findings as broadly applicable across West and South Asia, we now frame them as context-bound analytical generalizations, applicable only to settings that closely match the institutional, economic, and sectoral conditions of the case under study. This aligns more accurately with case-based research principles and avoids overgeneralization.

Second, we have introduced explicit acknowledgment of macro-level confounding factors that were not directly controlled in the study. These include national economic sanctions, industrial policy regimes, and country-specific institutional configurations, all of which may significantly influence SME behavior and performance. By incorporating this clarification, we recognize the limits of cross-context comparability and avoid overstating the explanatory power of the model.

Third, we have strengthened the Methods and Limitations sections by clearly stating that the study does not explicitly control for such macro-level confounders and that the cross-sectional, single-case design constrains both causal inference and analytical generalization. We now explicitly caution that the findings should be interpreted as context-specific insights rather than broadly generalizable conclusions.

Finally, we have revised the Discussion section to remove any language suggesting universal applicability, replacing it with more precise wording that emphasizes conditional transferability and theoretical contribution rather than empirical generalization.

These revisions significantly improve the conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and interpretive accuracy of the manuscript, and directly address the reviewer’s concerns regarding external validity and omitted variable bias.

 

Summary of Major Revisions in Response to the Reviewer: 

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the thorough and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. The comments provided have been highly valuable in improving the methodological rigor, clarity, and overall contribution of the study.

In response, we have undertaken substantial revisions across multiple sections of the manuscript. Specifically, we have clarified the inferential scope of the cross-sectional design and aligned our interpretations with the limitations of causal and temporal inference. We have improved transparency in the sampling design by explicitly reporting the parameters used in sample size determination and by providing a clearer justification for the adopted sampling strategy, while also acknowledging its limitations.

Furthermore, we have expanded the empirical analysis to include full testing of all proposed hypotheses, incorporating mediation and moderation analyses and appropriately reframing time-related effects based on qualitative evidence. The qualitative methodology has been significantly strengthened through the addition of a structured coding manual, reporting of inter-rater reliability, and enhanced documentation of the analytical process.

We have also reinforced the mixed-methods design by explicitly integrating qualitative and quantitative findings through triangulation, demonstrating how the two components complement and validate each other. In addition, the measurement model has been clarified through the inclusion of scale sources, localization procedures, pre-testing details, and item purification steps.

To address concerns related to common method bias, we have incorporated both procedural and statistical remedies, thereby improving the robustness of the results. Finally, we have carefully recalibrated the scope of our claims by limiting generalization, explicitly acknowledging unobserved contextual factors, and strengthening the discussion of limitations.

Overall, these revisions have substantially improved the internal consistency, methodological transparency, and theoretical positioning of the manuscript. We believe the revised version provides a more rigorous and balanced contribution, and we are grateful to the reviewer for guiding these improvements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper studies barriers to SMEs' growth in a rural setting in Iran. It employs a qualitative method analysis on a survey that returned 200 answers and 20 interviews.

The paper introduces two research questions (RQs)

(1) What are the primary economic, regulatory, governmental, and socio-cultural barriers that hinder the establishment of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)? 

(2) How do these barriers influence the growth and sustainability of SMEs in traditional industry settings?

These RQs are excessive. I suggest that the authors reduce the questions to the second, and rephrase with emphasis on the local condition of your case: rural/semi-urban, heritage-based. Example: Which barriers influence the growth and sustainability of SMEs in traditional industries in rural settings?

You must align your research question and your research design.

The 5 hypotheses on page 4 (lines 174-185) are excessive and anticipate the evidence of your analysis. This is not a hypothesis test paper; your paper relies on surveys and interviews. You are exploring a case; therefore, your aim is not to test hypotheses, but to offer insights, maybe propositions. 

You may consider moving your conceptual framework (Figure 1, on page 5) after Section 2, “literature review”. It is not usual to have this sort of diagram in the introduction.

I do not see Section 2 as a “literature review”; this is not what your paper is offering. Instead, section 2 is the “theoretical background” of the paper. They may seem similar, but they are very different in scope. 

Similarly, your section 4 is the “analysis” more than the “results” of the paper. Don’t be too confident about your results. Despite the multiple statistical tests, they are limited to context-dependent observations with all the usual caveats that issues related to surveys.

You are right to write that the context of your research is a limitation, but you can also leverage the context specificity of your case instead of searching for generalizability. 

You should present more in-depth the context of the research, justify the selection of both method and case for their relevance to your research question, and be more specific about terms and definitions. For example, you mentioned multiple times “heritage-based economies” but I could not find a clear definition of what it means and why it is important 

The limitations should stay in the Conclusion section rather than in the Discussion section.

In conclusion,

Provide a clearer explanation and justification for the choice of case study, the selection of participants, and the choice of methodology in relation to the research question.

Focus the paper on the case and its characteristics rather than on hypotheses and statistics. Refer to the specific features of the case right from the introduction, and mention its significance as a semi-urban setting as early as the abstract or the title.

Create a more coherent and comprehensive theoretical framework that provides a complete definition of the terms used and their significance for your case and its implications.

I hope this review helps to improve your research.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. The review has been particularly valuable in helping us refine the conceptual positioning, structure, and methodological alignment of the manuscript.

In response, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the paper, focusing on improving the coherence between research questions, methodological design, and analytical approach. We have also strengthened the theoretical framing, clarified key concepts, and restructured several sections of the manuscript to better reflect the exploratory and context-driven nature of the study.

Below, we address the main points raised by the reviewer in a structured manner.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have refined the research questions to better align with the exploratory nature of the study and the specific context of heritage-based, semi-urban SMEs. The revised formulation places greater emphasis on context-specific barriers and their influence on firm growth and sustainability, rather than presenting multiple broad questions. This revision ensures a clearer alignment between the research question, case study design, and mixed-method approach.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the use of hypotheses in an exploratory, case-based study. In response, we have revised the manuscript to reduce the emphasis on formal hypothesis testing. Specifically, the previously stated hypotheses have been reframed as theoretically informed propositions, and the language throughout the manuscript has been adjusted to reflect an exploratory and interpretive analytical approach rather than confirmatory hypothesis testing. This change better aligns the analytical strategy with the nature of the data and the case study design.

We have restructured the manuscript in several ways to improve clarity and adherence to academic conventions. First, the conceptual framework (Figure 1) has been relocated to follow the theoretical background section, ensuring a more logical progression from theory to conceptualization. Second, Section 2 has been retitled from “Literature Review” to “Theoretical Background” to better reflect its purpose. Third, Section 4 has been reframed as “Analysis” rather than “Results,” and the language has been revised to present findings more cautiously and contextually.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have strengthened the theoretical framing of the study by providing clearer definitions and conceptual grounding for key terms, particularly “heritage-based economies.” We now explicitly define this concept and explain its relevance to the case, highlighting how traditional industries, cultural production, and local economic structures shape SME dynamics in semi-urban contexts. These additions contribute to a more coherent and comprehensive theoretical framework.

We have revised the manuscript to place stronger emphasis on the specificity and analytical value of the case study. Rather than positioning the findings in terms of broad generalizability, we now highlight the contextual richness of the case and its contribution to theory through context-bound insights. We have also expanded the description of the research setting and provided clearer justification for case selection, participant sampling, and methodological choices in relation to the research question.

Overall, these revisions significantly improve the conceptual clarity, structural coherence, and methodological alignment of the manuscript. The paper now more clearly reflects its exploratory, case-based nature, with a stronger emphasis on context, theory-informed interpretation, and analytical rigor.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sending your revised paper;  the current version is accepted in the current format.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for providing constructive remarks to us. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am fully satisfied and would like to commend the authors for responding to the suggestions with a constructive and positive attitude. The improvements to the paper are evident, particularly in the methodology and research design, which are now aligned with the research objectives.

I suggest two improvements to bring the paper up to the standard required for publication.

1) The five propositions in the introduction should be better framed as lines of inquiry that form the paper’s research question, and, above all, they should be revisited in the discussion section as evidence of the results’ relevance to answering the research question.

2) The descriptive statistics in Section 4.1 are far too extensive and detailed. The authors should condense them into a brief description using only one or two tables.

Good job.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The five propositions in the introduction should be better framed as lines of inquiry that form the paper’s research question, and, above all, they should be revisited in the discussion section as evidence of the results’ relevance to answering the research question.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.

In response, we have revised the framing of the five propositions in the Introduction to better align with the exploratory nature of the study. Specifically, we now present them as “lines of inquiry” and analytical lenses that guide the investigation, rather than as formal hypotheses to be strictly tested.

Furthermore, we have strengthened the Discussion section by explicitly revisiting these lines of inquiry and linking them to the empirical findings. This addition clarifies how the results contribute to answering the research question and demonstrates the relevance of each analytical dimension (economic, regulatory, financial, institutional, and socio-cultural) in shaping SME outcomes.

These revisions improve the conceptual coherence of the manuscript and ensure a clearer alignment between the research question, analytical framework, and interpretation of findings.

 

Comment 2:

The descriptive statistics in Section 4.1 are far too extensive and detailed. The authors should condense them into a brief description using only one or two tables.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion.

In response, we have substantially shortened and streamlined Section 4.1 to improve clarity and readability. The descriptive statistics have been condensed to focus only on the most relevant patterns, and excessive detail has been removed from the main text.

In addition, two figures presenting descriptive results have been removed to avoid redundancy and improve the overall clarity of presentation.

These revisions result in a more concise and focused section, and better align the manuscript with standard practices in empirical research reporting.