Shaping Entrepreneurial Intentions Through Education: An Empirical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I appreciate the topic, I recommend the following changes to the manuscript:

 

Please expand the introduction section and insert in its last paragraph the description of the following sections.

I recommend inserting a dedicated Literature Review section.

I believe that the results would be more impressive if supported by tables/results of the models tested, either in the results section or in the appendices.

I recommend expanding the list of literature references and citing them in the text accordingly.

Author Response

Comment: Please expand the introduction section and insert in its last paragraph the description of the following sections.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The introduction has been expanded to provide a more comprehensive overview of the study’s context and objectives. Additionally, the last paragraph now includes a description of the content covered in the following sections to enhance clarity and guide the reader through the manuscript.

Comment: I recommend inserting a dedicated Literature Review section.
Response: We appreciate your input and have created a dedicated section titled "Literature Review." This section now explicitly outlines the theoretical framework and includes the main hypotheses, separating it from the methodology section to ensure clarity.

Comment: I believe that the results would be more impressive if supported by tables/results of the models tested, either in the results section or in the appendices.
Response: We have incorporated tables into the results section to present the findings from the tested models clearly. These tables enhance the clarity of the results and provide a visual representation of the data analysis.

Comment: I recommend expanding the list of literature references and citing them in the text accordingly.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. We have expanded the reference list to include additional relevant literature. All new references have been appropriately cited in the text to strengthen the theoretical foundation of the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 160. I encourage you to show how you determined the minimum sample size of your study. There is a lack of agreement about SEM sample size and showing support for why a sample of 135 is acceptable might improve the manuscript. 

While not a requirement, I suggest rewording the hypotheses so that they are testable and clearly explain how they will be tested. I think I understand what you tested, but the hypotheses are a bit vague to me. More specific 'testable' language might help. For example, H3 is quite broad with many components. Separating the components into separate hypotheses might improve the manuscript, The analyses are fine, just suggesting rewording hypotheses for clarity.

Author Response

Comment: Line 160. I encourage you to show how you determined the minimum sample size of your study. There is a lack of agreement about SEM sample size, and showing support for why a sample of 135 is acceptable might improve the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have expanded the methodology section to clarify how we determined the minimum sample size for our study. We referenced relevant literature that discusses acceptable sample sizes for SEM analysis, including studies that validate a sample size of 135 for robust statistical analysis.

Comment: While not a requirement, I suggest rewording the hypotheses so that they are testable and clearly explain how they will be tested. I think I understand what you tested, but the hypotheses are a bit vague to me. More specific 'testable' language might help. For example, H3 is quite broad with many components. Separating the components into separate hypotheses might improve the manuscript. The analyses are fine, just suggesting rewording hypotheses for clarity.
Response: We appreciate your suggestion regarding the hypotheses. We have reworded the hypotheses to make them more specific and testable. Additionally, we have separated the components of H3 into distinct hypotheses to clarify their focus and to enhance the overall understanding of the research design and objectives.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

The article raises an interesting topic of great practical relevance. However, some points could be considered in the manuscript to improve the quality of the analysis carried out and the relevance of the results.

To individual parts:

·          First off all, the title of the paper could be crafted better. I suggest the following modification: Shaping Entrepreneurial Intentions through Education: An Empirical Study

·          The Abstract includes the purpose of the study, and the methods used. The contribution and results of the study are also presented concisely.

·          The Introduction provides the research background and the general purpose of the research. However, a research gap and the main research question should also be formulated in this section. It is also recommended that authors expand the Introduction to indicate the logic of the presentation of the research material in the last paragraph, e.g. specifying in which chapter what information or research results are included.

·          The literature review provides important information. The main hypotheses were explicitly formulated what raise the value of the paper to readers significantly. Nevertheless, the hypotheses were formulated based on a limited literature review. Additionally, I recommend moving the information contained in subsections 2.1 and 2.2 to a separate section titled "2. Literature Review." Placing this information in a chapter titled "2. Material and Methods" is incorrect, as a chapter with this title refers to research methodology; therefore, subsections 2.3 and 2.4 should belong under it. It is essential to separate the literature review along with hypotheses from the methodology and data sources.

•        The study design is appropriate. Structure of the study, selection of tools and clarity of the sample description, but a deeper methodological analysis, e.g. justification of the research sample selection, would be advisable.

 

•        The results of the study are transparent presented and adequately explained. However, the inclusion of more detail, as well as a critical appraisal of the data, will improve the quality of the analysis. The author has created too many sub-sections, which hinders clarity, as some sub-sections contain only a single sentence, e.g., sub-section 3.4. The author has created too many sub-sections, which hinders clarity, as some sub-sections contain only a single sentence, e.g., sub-section 3.4. The number of sub-sections should be reduced.

 

•        The discussion presents the main findings and refers to the findings of other authors, pointing out similarities and differences with recent studies. The section also comments on the theoretical and practical implications, and identifies the limitations of this study and future research directions. However, the author has created too many sub-sections, which hinders clarity. The number of sub-sections should be reduced. Moreover, why do sub-sections 4.8.1 to 4.8.4 have colons in their titles?

 •        Conclusions are adequately described.

 •        The literature mentioned in the references is important but very modest. There is a need to add the literature review with additional references.

 

The academic language is correct, however a general proofreading would be advisable.

 

Author Response

Title Suggestion
Comment: Suggested modification of the title to Shaping Entrepreneurial Intentions through Education: An Empirical Study
Response: The suggested title modification has been adopted to enhance clarity and focus on the study

Introduction Enhancements
Comment: Add the research gap and main research question in the Introduction and clarify the paper's structure in the final paragraph
Response: The Introduction has been revised to highlight the research gap and main question, with an outline of the content in each section provided in the final paragraph to improve flow

Literature Review and Hypotheses Section
Comment: Move information from subsections 2.1 and 2.2 to a separate section titled "Literature Review"
Response: A separate "Literature Review" section has been created to include the hypotheses, while the methodology is now retained solely in the "Materials and Methods" section

Methodology Justification
Comment: Provide a deeper justification for the research sample selection
Response: A justification for the research sample selection has been added in the methodology section to enhance reliability

Results Presentation and Subsection Reduction
Comment: Improve the analysis and reduce the number of subsections, particularly subsection 3.4
Response: The results have been clarified further, and some subsections were merged to improve readability

Discussion Section Structure and Formatting
Comment: Reduce the number of subsections in the discussion and remove colons from subsection titles 4.8.1 to 4.8.4
Response: Subsections in the discussion were merged to enhance coherence, and titles of subsections 4.8.1 to 4.8.4 were revised for consistent formatting

Expanded References
Comment: Increase the number of references to strengthen the literature review
Response: Additional relevant references were added to strengthen the theoretical framework of the study

Proofreading and Language Quality
Comment: General proofreading is advisable
Response: A comprehensive proofreading was conducted to improve clarity and quality of academic language

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the changes made contribute significantly to the rigor and clarity of the work, thus, I consider that the work can follow the course towards publication.