40 citation sources are already there in the papers so you do not need to find more. Please just follow instructions provided strictly. Please rewrite this paper according to reviewers’ comments below: Reviewer(s)’ Comments to Author: Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author Your work highlights the interesting and related operational lens (e.g., tying entrepreneurial traits with the success factors of online entrepreneurs ). However, I have identified that more development is required. 1. Rewrite the topic of the paper. It is grammatically wrong. 2. The introduction is extremely weak. The research question is unclear and vague, and the authors have failed to provide sound arguments about the reason for doing this research. They should be mentioned. Then, what is new in this research that authors are going to contribute and how they have done it. 3. Please move Table 1 and 2 to the literature review section 4. Move the “discussion” section to the “results” section. Instead, in the discussion section described your results by combining them with the current state of the art and discuss what you have added (what not or could be, etc. and try to challenge your drawbacks to open a path for the future research). 5. The whole paper needs to be proofread by a native speaker, for many typos and construction of phrases that are not very much clear. Some expressions are really hard to be interpreted, and several paragraphs seem disjointed. 6. Use these papers for boosting your literature review and discussion. Managerial application of framing effects and mental accounting in network participation. Advances in Production Engineering and Management, 6, 57-69 Trailblazing in Entrepreneurship: Creating New Paths for Understanding the Field (book by Dean A. Shepherd and Holger Patzelt ) Gender Risk Preference in Entrepreneurial Opportunity: Evidence from Iran. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 30 (2), 147-169. Good luck! Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author Dear Author(s), Although the article is well written, it needs minor revision as per first review. You have not written anything regarding limitation and future works, as separate subheadings in ht conclusion part. The rest is quite good.
Hide