Human Resources, Investor Composition and Performance of Venture Funds: Focused on the Stakeholders of Venture Funds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Taking into account the title of the article, it is necessary to add a theoretical paragraph on managerial capital and its components (in relation to managers) and human capital (in relation to blue collars workers).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The research problem of the article is very interesting. The research conducted in the article completes the gap in the scope of considerations on the relationship between human resources, the composition of investors, and the results of funds.
The literature review has been honestly done. It is sufficient. Classical statistical methods were used. They are adequate to the stated aim of the article and hypotheses. Correct conclusions from the research were formulated.
The article properly highlights the implications of the research results for practice.
The article should emphasize the limitations of the research and the conclusions drawn.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article “Human Resources, Investor Composition and Performance of Venture Funds: Focused on the Stakeholders of Venture Funds” considers the effect of the human resources, investor composition of venture funds on fund performances and determines the effect of the fund manager retention period, retention rate and investors’ number on fund performance. The authors consider blind funds and project funds.
Dear Authors, thank you for your study. I would like to offer several comments for consideration.
1. The Introduction section is absolutely normative. You provide a lot of information, and do not show the source of this information (for example, lines 22-28, 29-34, and so on.)
2. In some cases, you name the source of the information, but do not organise it as a reference (for example, lines 35-36). In other cases, you use footnotes instead of using the system of referencing of the journal.
3. Could you please add the explanation why it is important to study the key issue of your research? What is the theoretical value of this study? What is the practical value of the study?
4. When you demonstrate the results of correlation analysis you do not provide any considerations on (+) or (-) correlations between the variables, and for me some of the directions are not quite understandable.
5. Some p-values are more than 0.05 (p=.052). Nevertheless, you do not comment it in any way.
6. You show Fisher value, but do not show the degrees of freedom
7. You demonstrate R2 between 0.13 and 0.19, and adj. R2 between 0.06 and 0.13 – is the explanatory power of model enough for you? I would like to see any comments how you interpret the obtained results. If model explains only about 13% of cases – is it enough for not rejecting this hypothesis? You do not show the criteria of rejecting/not rejecting the hypotheses.
I hope you will add some explanatory notes to the study to make it easier for other researchers to comprehend your idea.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic addressed in the paper is very relevant, but the study accomplished need to consider a more variables to obtain more relevant results. With the data collected the conclusions achieved are "poor" or the expected, without necessity to use this research work. Considering a more detailed set of variables and trying to collect more data about this business the study will be very relevant to provides a basis for government policy needs to actively foster 703 GPs centred on fund management personnel.
I suggest a new tentative to obtain more data that allow to transform this study in a more robust work to be shared.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer 4 Report
I appreciate the answer of the authors and I reconsider to accept the paper. However, my expectations when I have downloaded the paper in the first time maybe were others. Maybe, for this reason my first comments.
