Testing the Influence of Self-Efficacy and Demographic Characteristics among International Students on Entrepreneurial Intention in the Context of Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As indicated in the previous review.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Hope this email finds you well.

First of all, congratulations on your work. Thank you very much for the explanations and for having accepted the suggestions for improvement that I proposed to your article.

I found all the changes really useful. There are minor changes to be done, but otherwise, I think your article brings a significant contribution to the academic literature.

I wish the best of the authors.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

see file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

With much pleasure I read the paper "Testing the influence of self-efficacy and demographic characteristics among international students on entrepreneurial intention in the context of Hungary". However, after carefully readiong it, I consider that the authors need to address some points before the paper can be published. Please, see some comments below that could improve the quality of the paper, in no particular order.

1. The authors need to revise the writing of the paper, and the grammar.
2. Keywords are extremely long. The authors should rewrite them so the reader knows what the authors do and find in less than a sentence. Now, the authors have a three-line keyword section.
3. Please, rewrite the Introduction so it is clear from the beginning what is the objective of the paper. I would recommend including specific paragraphs for the paper results and the paper contributions to the literature.
4. Please, make extremely clear from the beginning of the manuscript why studying international students is crucial, and why these individuals need to be analyzed separately from the general population. Otherwise it is unclear which is the contribution of the paper. I have the feeling that the current version of the manuscript does not convince the reader that international students need to be analyzed as a particular group.
5. (Related to point #4) Why the four capacities analyzed should affect international students in a different way than they affect the general population? This is crucial, as if it is known that these capacities affect entrepreneurial intentions for the general population, and it is not clearly explained why they affect entrepreneurial intentions of international students differently, the contribution of the paper is unclear.
6. When writing the empirical analysis and results, please, describe what the estimated/computed statistics are used for in details. 
7. Please, carefully revise how Tables are included in the text. It is extremely annoying to read a manuscript in which Tables appear in different pages due to a bad formating of the text.
8. Please, name every Table column. For example, in Table 2, it is unclear what the columns refer to. Furthermore, the number of columns changes from one page to another. The same happens in Table 4.
9. Please, use the same structure for tables in the manuscript. For example, Tables 2 and 4 show different formats (e.g., the presence of column lines). You need to be consistent.
10. There are several words and sentences in red.
11. What is the weight of influence in ll. 447 (pp. 12)?
12. Please, carefully describe any test that you use. For example, which outliers test are checked? 
13. I do not understand the strategy. If the objective is to show the relevance of OMC, RCC, RTC, and JOIC, I consider that these variables should appear in all the estimated models, and the authors should include demographics one by one. Please, re-do the analysis, or carefully explain the logic for this strategy.
14. The authors claim that t-tests are used to compare two different groups of variables, which is not true. These tests are used to compare the average values of a variable, for two different population groups.
15. Reference 105 is not adequately formatted in the reference list.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed my comments, and I consider the paper is ready for publication in its present form.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,
First of all, I would like to thank Sustainability for inviting me to review this manuscript “Testing the influence of self-efficacy and demographic characteristics among international students on entrepreneurial 3 intention in the context of Hungary”.

The article addresses a topic related to Entrepreneurship, a current topic of great
interest.  

Overall, the article is well written, presents a literature review with interesting and presents a case study with a methodology with interest and a relatively significant sample. Current topic, conclusions are relevant and timely for the improvement of knowledge in the scientific area. The methods chosen are appropriate and correspond to the research questions. The article is well structured.

However, I would recommend the following improvements for the study:

• Overall, the literature review is comprehensive and written with sufficient support. (even though will need some minor corrections concerning quotations and references);
• in the literature review it is suggested to include a summary of other studies, compiling the applied methodology and the main conclusions;
• the methods should be more detailed from a statistical point of view and suggested a greater support in the applied methodology, detailing not only the questionnaire survey, but the methodology applied and the theoretical rationale for the choice of methodology;
• It is suggested that in the discussion of the results a comparison be made with other studies
• Presented in the state of the art, carrying out a comparative discussion with the literature review. The study presents a good discussion of the results but lacks a better comparative discussion with the results of similar studies;
• Although the previous point arises a discussion of the results, it is suggested that the conclusion develops the conclusion.
  
  
  Thank you for the opportunity and good luck to the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Testing the influence of self-efficacy and demographic characteristics among international students on entrepreneurial intention in the context of Hungary

The authors investigate the effect of self-efficacy and several socio-structural variables on entrepreneurial intention. The study design and results represents a copy of prior studies, the only unique element in this research is a Hungarian sample. Since this is probably insufficient for a publication I would suggest to at least applying different test statistics and refining the hypotheses.

First, since the sample consist of 5 different universities, I would suggest to use hierarchical linear models to test the proposed relationships.

Second, there are many arguments that could be used to rather expect non-linear relationships, i.e. inversely U-shaped effects. Therefore I would suggest to carefully check all hypothesis and refine the testing with quadratic terms.

Third, the paper would profit in introduction and conclusion to first explain why particularly the Hungarian context is different and needs to be studied and secondly what are the conclusions that can be drawn from this. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the issues raised except of investigating the multi-level character of the data.  Still the contribution of this study is minor and I cannot suggest to publish this manuscript without raising this.