From Start-Up Capital to Diversification and Sustainability of Personal Branding Activities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review this article, please note the followings:

1.     Despite the attracting title the article has it has demotivating contents and structure.

2.     Article is not clear and full of ambiguity does not have the key aspects that make up proper abstract.

3.     Weak introduction that does not focus on the research gap and problem of the study, it only present general information.

4.     Literature review and hypotheses development are confusing, so many hypothesis under one section.

5.     There is no clear pictorial representation of the study concepts and variables, figure 1 is confusing and misleading.

6.     All figures are missing and does not show any pictures.

7.     Analysis is all mixed together, there should be separate sections to make it for readers to follow up what has been conducted.

8.     Very poor discussion, it does not compare the findings with any previous studies.

9.     There is no implication for the study, neither theoretical nor practical implications.

10. Conclusion is not comprehensive and very limited and it does not contain any future guidelines or limitations.

11.  There is a need for proofreading.

 

All the best

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Colleague,

 

very many thanks for your article. 

The linkage that you have made between start-up and sustainability of personal branding is very important and valuable issue within entrepreneurship area. However, here are some suggestions in order to make some minor approvements:

* Literature review part is missing

(lines 65-68) belongs to the part of Personal branding process

(lines 81-88) please argument with some references

(line 165) please precise what did you mean by 'a sense of agency'

(line 314) table 9 doesn't have so respectable results to be shown, so please describe it in words

(line 329) table 10, the same explanation as above mentioned for table 9

(line 398-435) In discussion part it's important to discuss all outcomes, not only social capital outcomes

(line 413-414) Please argument written statement

* In the literature part, more than half of your sources are older than 10 years; as you've chosen quite contemporary issue, please include some latest references as well

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and well written. The abstract provides a clear overview of the paper's focus, addressing the significance of personal branding in the contemporary business landscape. The introduction effectively contextualizes personal branding historically and within the framework of the knowledge-based economy, providing a strong foundation for the research. The inclusion of a research framework model (Figure 1) enhances the clarity of the personal branding process, presenting a visual representation that aids in understanding. The division of the personal branding process into smaller activities, such as self-cognition, strategic planning, and brand communication, contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the subject. The research tool and methodology are well-described, including the use of a diagnostic survey method. The division of start-up capital into social, economic, and cultural capital is appropriate, offering a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing personal branding activities. The exploration of hypotheses and verification process is thorough, and the connection between variables and personal branding activities is well-established. The discussion section provides a comprehensive analysis of the findings, offering insights into the relationship between various factors and personal branding activities. However, I have some review comments, suggestions and editing issues listed hereunder, I need the author to address point by point

 

1.      While the study mentions the cyclical nature of the personal branding process, it would be helpful to delve into specific examples or case studies illustrating how individuals navigate these cycles over time.

2.      The introduction highlights several factors contributing to the development of personal branding, such as individualism and the influence of the internet. Could you explore these factors in more detail through additional literature review?

3.      Provide more insights into the measurement of personal brand capital.

4.      In the demographic characteristics table (Table 1), there's a small typo in the age category "25-24 years." Should it be "25-34 years"?

5.      What were the selection criteria for the survey sample? How was it determined to be representative, and were specific criteria set for inclusion or exclusion?

6.      Regarding the research tool, how were the indicators for cultural capital (e.g., education, readership, attitudes) measured or quantified in the questionnaire? Precise.

7.      In Figure 2, there seems to be a discrepancy in the percentage labels for the PBC block in the "average" and "high" SoC levels. Could you confirm or correct this for clarity? Meaning that the x-axis labels seem to be incorrect. It appears to represent the SoC level rather than the individual blocks (PBS, PBP, PBD, PBCV, PBC).

8.      In Figure 3, regarding the earnings level, there's a note about "PLN 7001 gross / month," but the figure shows categories up to PLN 9000. Is this a discrepancy, or is there an explanation for the difference?

9.      In Figure 5, the x-axis labels seem to have some overlap. It might be helpful to adjust the labels for better readability.

10.   The Spearman correlation coefficient mentioned in relation to EC1 and EC2 is described as moderate but statistically significant. Provide a brief interpretation or context for this correlation in the discussion section.

11.   The discussion of the correlation between CCE and personal branding activities (Hypothesis H4) could be expanded! Are there any unexpected findings, or how does this correlation align with existing literature?

12.   are there specific insights or patterns you observed in the relationship between cultural capital (CCS) and personal branding activities that you'd like to highlight (Hypothesis H5 )?

13.   elaborate on the implications of this finding: the PBCV block excels among blocks in all groups (Hypothesis H7)

14.   The speculation on the threshold for the differentiation, the positive correlation between higher social capital and a greater variety of personal branding activities is a thought-provoking aspect that could be further explored in the discussion and implication of this research.

15.   While the discussion is thorough, it could benefit from more explicit references to existing literature. Integrating relevant theories or studies would strengthen the academic foundation of the discussion.

16.   Consider expanding on the implications of the findings. How can individuals leverage these insights for more effective personal branding? Additionally, are there practical implications for businesses or organizations in understanding personal branding diversity?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate editing for english 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has improved, yet a few comments need to be addressed. Please recheck the previous comments raised:

Comment number 5

Still, the model of the study (figure) does not clearly show actual work.

 

Comments 6

still figures does not show anything.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I took another look at the drawings, indeed not everything was presented well enough. So I have made the appropriate changes.

• “Comment number 5 - Still, the model of the study (figure) does not clearly show actual work.”

I have corrected the description of Figure 1 (266 – 286) and added an additional one (Figure 2) presenting a hypothesis model (lines 540 – 544)

• „Comments 6 - still figures does not show anything.”

I have added a relevant explanation to each drawing, which is structured as follows:

Figure 3 shows the percentage of indications of each personal branding activity group in relation to the SoC level. An activity group is considered as an 'undertaken activity' above the accepted cutoff line (dashed line in the graph). The greater the number of 'undertaken activities' (bars above the cutoff line for a given SoC level), the greater the diversification of activities undertaken in personal branding.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

congratulations to the authors, the manuscript is improved and the research results and findings are interesting.

good luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor english editing

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. In the second round of revisions, the text was checked by one more person fluent in English. I hope it meets the requirements this time.