This revised version demonstrates a notable improvement in both structure and substance compared to the previous submission. The authors have clearly responded to prior reviewer feedback by enhancing the clarity of the title, strengthening the theoretical framework, and situating the study more firmly within the context of developing countries—especially Indonesia. The integration of Human Capital Theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior add conceptual rigor that was previously missing, while the expanded introduction now offers a stronger justification for the study’s relevance and novelty.

The methodology section shows significant progress. The description of the PRISMA 2020 process, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the visualization of the search procedure through Publish or Perish now ensure methodological transparency and replicability. Although reliance on Scopus remains a limitation, the acknowledgment of this constraint and the suggestion for future inclusion of WoS and ERIC are appropriate and strengthen the paper’s integrity.

The “Findings and Discussion” section is now better structured around the stated objectives, making it easier to follow. Thematic organization by types of financial skills, pedagogical approaches, and impacts on entrepreneurial outcomes enhances interpretability and aligns with PRISMA’s systematic synthesis standards. Compared with the earlier version, the narrative demonstrates deeper engagement with the literature, and the inclusion of developing-country insights adds value to the global discussion on financial literacy and student entrepreneurship.

The conclusion and recommendations are more aligned with the findings. They now clearly articulate theoretical, practical, and policy implications, particularly in terms of integrating financial literacy into entrepreneurship education and fostering collaboration among universities, financial institutions, and policymakers. These revisions meaningfully elevate the scholarly and applied contribution of the manuscript.

Overall, the authors have addressed most of the critical weaknesses highlighted in the first review, including issues of novelty, organization, methodological clarity, and theoretical grounding. The paper now meets an acceptable scientific standard for indexing, with only minor polishing needed in language consistency and deeper reflection on cross-regional comparisons in the discussion section.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

Entrepreneurship education, economics literacy, economics education, knowldge transfer.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Dear Author,

Congratulations on successfully completing this manuscript. I have read it with great interest. There are several problems that need to be addressed in this manuscript.

First, in the introduction. You have not specifically described the novelty of this finding. There have been many literature review themes like this. However, you have not explained what distinguishes the findings of this study from previous studies. My suggestion is to explore it with the perspective of entrepreneurship education in developing countries. In addition, the theoretical perspective you use has not been described specifically.

Second, in the results section. This section is very weak. There is no information found by the reader, especially the latest information. This section is unable to reduce the entire literature that has been reviewed.

Third, the conclusion section. Not in line with the research results. In addition, the recommendations and/or theoretical and practical implications are unclear.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

Entrepreneurship education, economics literacy, economics education, knowldge transfer.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

“Why is it important? Financial literacy in students in entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review” – the title is confusing. Does it include students who are involved in entrepreneurship?

The methodology is not clearly explained in the abstract.

In the introduction, the authors need to deliberate on the impact of entrepreneurship on the country, economy, and society. Explain also how entrepreneurship is significant in the Indonesian context. Then, down to a discussion on youth entrepreneurship. Explain the growth, highlight the challenges and issues, and then focus on the importance of financial management.

Financial skills – define and elaborate on the skills and what is still lacking among youth in Indonesia.

Please highlight the research gaps and discuss the significance of the study.

The literature review section needs to be included in the manuscript.

Methodology

Why did the researchers include the SCOPUS journal only? How about WOS?

Scopus keyword search needs to be included in a written form.

Figure 3 is not a result. You may organize it as “Findings and Discussion.”

The findings section is poor, with a lack of in-depth discussion. Please thoroughly discuss the findings.

The study should have clear research objectives to help the researchers to organize the findings.

For example:

To assess types of financial skills

To assess the approach to improving financial literacy

Thus, you can structure the discussion section based on the PRISMA findings

The current structure is disorganized and difficult to understand.

Recommendations – needs improvement as not explained properly.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Partly

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Entrepreneurship. social and youth studies, management, and environmental studies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.