Building Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: &nbsp;A Systematic Review

Adissu Ketemaw; Shimels Zewde; Mekonnen Bogale

doi:10.12688/f1000research.163278.1

Home Browse Building Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Systematic Review

Building Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved]

Adissu Ketemaw ¹, Shimels Zewde¹, Mekonnen Bogale²

PUBLISHED 21 Jul 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Management, Jimma University College of Business and Economics, Jimma, Oromia, 352, Ethiopia
² Jimma University College of Business and Economics, Jimma, Oromia, Ethiopia

Adissu Ketemaw
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Shimels Zewde
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision

Mekonnen Bogale
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Supervision, Validation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to advance research actions by offering a conceptual framework about entrepreneurship ecosystem building and entrepreneurship intention growth among students in higher education institution. The study conducted a comprehensive literature review, selecting peer-reviewed articles on entrepreneurial ecosystem building and entrepreneurial intention growth. A systematic review (SR) method was used to achieve he stated objectives the PRISMA protocol, searching approach, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data analysis technique were successfully applied. The research finding shows that developing a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem within universities can stimulate entrepreneurial activities, enhance self-efficacy, and cultivate an entrepreneurial culture. The findings also underscore the importance of creating environments that not only provide knowledge and skills but also practical experiences and support networks essential for nurturing future entrepreneurs. Finally both empirical and practical implication was identified and future research direction was suggested for future researchers.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship, Ecosystem and Entrepreneurial inattention

Corresponding author: Adissu Ketemaw

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2025 Ketemaw A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Ketemaw A, Zewde S and Bogale M. Building Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:715 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.163278.1) First published: 21 Jul 2025, 14:715 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.163278.1) Latest published: 21 Jul 2025, 14:715 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.163278.1)

1. Introduction

Building a robust entrepreneurship ecosystem is crucial for global economic sustainable development. Today, universities play a more significant role both politically and economically in the knowledge economy and society since they are centers of knowledge production and transmission. Collaborative efforts among government entities, educational institutions, professional infrastructure, and entrepreneurs are essential to strengthen entrepreneurship ecosystems, ultimately contributing to global economic sustainability (Vrabec et al., 2023). University plays a crucial role in fostering entrepreneurial intentions among students by providing high-quality entrepreneurship education, exposure to successful entrepreneurs, hands-on experiences, workshops, funding, mentorship, and a supportive environment (Astuty et al., 2022, Vrabec et al., 2023 and Uctu & Al-Silefanee, 2023).

The entrepreneurial ecosystem is a network of interrelated actors and variables that support productive entrepreneurship (Stam, 2015). in this study ecosystem seen as universities practice building entrepreneurial ecosystem that emphasizes the importance of a supportive environment that includes not just formal education but also extracurricular activities, incubators, and networking opportunities. universities that actively engage in creating a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem tend to see higher levels of entrepreneurial activities among students (Lajos Makai, A., & Dory, T. 2023) & (Makai & Dory, 2023).

Building entrepreneurship ecosystem through quality education in higher education at scale has therefore been at the top of the national agenda for most national economies. Universities also assume the responsibility of fostering entrepreneurship and actively participating in the community economy. Therefor this study aims to review how higher education contribute to building entrepreneurship ecosystem and knowledge production that fosters student entrepreneurial intention to pursue self-employment, sustainable entrepreneurship development.

2. Entrepreneurship ecosystem model

An entrepreneurial ecosystem is defined as a set of dynamic local, social, institutional, and cultural processes and actors that promote new firm formation and growth. Unlike other related concepts such as clusters or innovation systems, entrepreneurial ecosystems start with the individual entrepreneur rather than the company and emphasize the local context (Fuller-Love & Akiode, 2020). The concept of an entrepreneurial ecosystem has gained significant popularity, evidenced by the increasing number of scholarly articles, books, and conferences dedicated to this topic. Various scholars have since adapted the ecosystem concept to different fields, including strategy, knowledge, innovation, and entrepreneurship ( Nasib Jafarov & Hungarian, 2022). Entrepreneurial ecosystems are a framework for understanding entrepreneurial activity in certain locations and industries (Cantner et al., 2021).

There are different models that illustrate the elements of ecosystem, each contributing uniquely to the understanding of these systems. Nasib Jafarov & Hungarian (2022) summarized six Entrepreneurship ecosystem models. Accordingly the assumptions and its appropriateness the models for this studies are discussed as follows. Ecosystem Domains by Isenberg (2010) Isenberg’s model emphasizes six critical dimensions that foster entrepreneurship: policy, markets, finance, human capital, support, and culture. Each area comprises distinct factors such as tax breaks, venture funding, educational institutions, and social attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Ecosystem Pillars by the World Economic Forum (2013) identifies three critical pillars for entrepreneurial success: accessible markets, human capital/workforce, and funding and finance. According to entrepreneurship model by Koltai, S. R. (2016) identifies six key pillars for successful entrepreneurship: identifying, training, connecting, funding, enabling, and celebrating entrepreneurs. It also identifies six key stakeholders: NGOs, corporations, foundations, government, academic institutions, and investors.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are combinations of social, political, economic, and cultural elements within a region that support the development and growth of innovative startups and encourage new entrepreneurs and other actors to take the risks of starting, funding, and otherwise assisting high-risk ventures. According to Budden & Murray (2019) Innovation-driven entrepreneurship approach by it emphasizes innovation as a fundamental driver of economic development and competitiveness. This approach highlights the necessity of establishing an environment that supports entrepreneurs’ creative efforts. The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem (EE) concept, created by, (Stam & van de Ven, 2021) emphasizes the dynamic and varied character of entrepreneurship within a community of interconnected players. The model has three components institution, resource endowment and productive entrepreneurship.

3. Objectives of the review literature

This review aims to advance research actions by offering a conceptual framework about entrepreneurship ecosystem building and entrepreneurship intention growth among students in higher education institution. The study conducted a comprehensive literature review, selecting peer-reviewed articles on entrepreneurial ecosystem building and entrepreneurial intention growth. To achieve this stated objective the researchers established the following three basic research questions.

1. What are the positions of higher education roles in building entrepreneurial ecosystems support to enhance student entrepreneurial intentions?
2. How are the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems support and student entrepreneurial intentions measured.
3. What types of methods and instruments used to study entrepreneurial ecosystems support and student entrepreneurial intentions.

4. Method

4.1 Research design

In this study systematic review method of research design was employed. Systematic review is a method of evaluating and interpreting available articles that is most relevant to the subject area in systematic and scientific procedures (Kitchenham, 2014). Domain based systematic review was implemented to adders the concerns of what methods and procedures used to study entrepreneurship ecosystem, how knowledge’s improved with related to entrepreneurship ecosystem and entrepreneurial intentions and what should we will do in the future to build effective entrepreneurial ecosystem for enhancing students entrepreneurial intention.

4.2 Data collection and searching strategy

A comprehensive, unbiased search approach was applied in this paper. According to Higgins et al. (2019), peer evaluation of search techniques is becoming a vital stage in developing and implementing high-quality search strategies to find publications for prospective inclusion in systematic reviews. This study relies heavily on two data base sources, Scopus and Web of Science, to identify and choose relevant, trustworthy, and noteworthy literatures. During the search for sources, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship ecosystem, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship support and entrepreneurial intentions were used as search terms.

Data collection process

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was developed at this stage to assist systematic reviewers in transparently reporting why the review was undertaken, what the authors did, and what they discovered (Page et al., 2021). PRISMA procedure consists of three major phases. The next sections will explain and justify the actions taken throughout each of these stages at Figure 1.

Figure 1. PRISSMA protocol. Source: developed by the authors.

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion and exclusion eligibility search criteria, which are set by the search questions and the objective of the review, serve as a filter to choose studies for the review. PRISMA procedure consists of three major phases. The next sections will explain and justify the actions taken throughout each of these stages.

1. Identification

In this stage the term entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship ecosystem, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship support and entrepreneurial intentions were used. Articles search from 2015 up to 2024 identified. Google scholar was used as a searching engine, since Google Scholar is an online search engine which helps to find scholarly data from academic publishers (Hoseth, 2011, Jamali & Nabavi, 2015 and Miller, 2019). In this case a total of 425 articles were identified.

2. Screening

During the screening stage, the source of data, duplication, and article language were all taken into account. As a result, 418 articles were rejected during this stage. On the other side, 105 articles were chosen and passed to the next level of eligibility.

3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

During this stage, 338 articles were rejected during this stage. On the other hand, 23 articles were chosen based on related field and types of research eligibility criteria And then the researcher reviewed 23 articles by using content analysis Content analysis is One of the most popular analytical techniques used in this multidisciplinary field, simply a collection of steps used to organize discrete data into a format that allows analysts to draw conclusions (Parveen & Showkat, 2017).

4.3 Method of data analysis

The researcher employed a data analysis approach that includes both descriptive and content analysis for the review questions developed at the beginning of the procedure. The descriptive analysis was carried out utilizing the categories supplied by the data mining form. The review matrix was developed to compare research findings based on database type (conceptual, empirical, or review) and level of analysis. To execute this type of analysis, the researcher had the following processes. First, the researcher classified the study descriptions into qualitative and qualitative research categories, as well as the data types used. Second, the research findings in each category were reviewed using a data summary. In the third stage, we synthesize the findings from all of the studies included in the study. There were both theoretical and practical findings were mentioned. Finally, the conclusion was drowning based on the results. And also the researcher identified the opportunity of this study to suggest for future researchers conducting advanced scientific research in this area.

5. Result and discussion

This review aims to advance research actions by offering a conceptual framework about entrepreneurship ecosystem building and entrepreneurship intention growth among students in higher education institution. To achieve this objective descriptive and content analysis methods of analysis were used to reach the conclusion, recommendation, and future researches.

5.1 Characteristics of the study

1. Types of the study reviewed

According to Figure 8, quantitative research received the greatest attention (70%, 21 publications), indicating a strong preference for measurable data and statistical analysis. Qualitative research was among the least common 10% (3 articles), showing a limited reliance on exploratory, non-numerical data. Furthermore, mixed research was used in 20% (6 papers), showing a balanced approach between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. This indicates that quantitative techniques are prevalent method for numerical and statistical assessment of the entrepreneurship environment and entrepreneurial ecosystem.

2. Year of publication

According to the graph below (Figure 2), research publications are distributed as follows: 2016 (3), 2017 (2), 2018 (1), 2019 (1), 2020 (6), 2021 (4), 2022 (6), 2023 (6). Research frequency has risen over time, with notable increases in 2020 and 2022 (6 articles each), indicating increasing interest or funding in those years. The years 2017, 2018, and 2019 had fewer publications, potentially due to altered research aims or external variables impacting research production. Since 2020, there has been a considerable increase in the number of publications, reflecting increased interest or funding in the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Figure 3).

3. Method of data collection used

Figure 2. Types of the study reviewed. Source: developed by the authors.

Figure 3. Year of publication. Source: developed by the authors.

According to the graph in Figure 4, surveys were the most commonly employed approach (16), indicating a preference for organized data collecting. Other approaches, such as interviews and survey combinations (3), interviews and observation combinations (2), focus group discussions (2), and individual methods such as interviews (1) and pilot experiments (1), were less popular, indicating a wide but restricted use. This suggests that survey methods were the favored way of data collection, probably due to their efficiency in acquiring huge volumes of data in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

4. Regional wise coverage of the studies reviewed

Figure 4. Method of data collection used. Source: developed by the authors.

The review article in this study was collected from different data base that those studies conducted in different countries in the world. The studies country coverage and its content were presented and analyzed as follows.

• Countries coverage

The graph below (Figure 5) reveals that China was the most often mentioned country (6), showing its engagement in the research. Other countries, such as Indonesia (3), Spain, South Africa, Malaysia (2), and a variety of others (1), demonstrate diverse international participation, but with varying degrees of involvement in the entrepreneurship ecosystem and its impact on graduate students’ entrepreneurial intentions. This conclusion implies that China provides a significant contribution to the field, reflecting its growing significance in academic research. There is less involvement from developing nations such as Africa, while there has been a greater unemployment rate.

• Contentment coverage

Figure 5. Countries coverage. Source: developed by the authors.

According to the above graph in Figure 6, Asia was the top content, with more than 15 nations participating in the research of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and graduate students’ entrepreneurial goals. Europe also has 5 nations involved in the subject of study, followed by Africa and South America (3 each). In contrast, North America’s countries showed less involvement in the sector.

5. Unit of analysis used in the studies reviewed

Figure 6. Contentment coverage. Source: developed by the authors.

According to the selected article material, SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) analysis was the most used approach (11), showing a preference for complicated statistical modeling. Multiple regression and descriptive studies (6) were also often utilized, indicating a significant focus on statistical correlation and description. Other methods, such as logistic regression (1), partial least squares (2), and conceptualizing papers (2), were less commonly used, indicating a mix of sophisticated and fundamental analytical approaches.

6. Variables review in the studies

As shown in Figure 7, entrepreneurship ambitions were the most commonly used variable (10), but entrepreneurial support was also frequently used, showing a major focus on how to improve students’ entrepreneurial intents. Other variables included in entrepreneurship ecosystem articles included entrepreneurial training, education, the entrepreneurial mid-set, and behavioral controls.

Figure 7. Unit of analysis used. Source: developed by the authors.

Figure 8. Research variables. Source: developed by the authors.

5.2 Summary of the review studies key finding

A research by Elnadi & Gheith (2021) highlights the entrepreneurial ecosystem’s favorable influence on students’ self-efficacy and goals exposure to successful entrepreneurs, hands-on experiences, Entrepreneurship Education fosters entrepreneurial intentions in students. Synergy between internal and external environment triggers student entrepreneurial activities (Astuty et al., 2022). The university entrepreneurial ecosystem and entrepreneurship education have a positive impact on students’ intention to be an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship education has a significant impact student’s entrepreneurial intention (Gupta, R. K., 2022).

Developing a suitable university entrepreneurial ecosystem that incorporates internal and external environmental assistance, schools can stimulate student performance in entrepreneurial activities, eventually encouraging an entrepreneurship culture among students (Astuty et al., 2022). Entrepreneurship-focused coursework, funding opportunities, and mentorship can all help business students develop entrepreneurial ambitions (Cekule et al., 2023). Furthermore, addressing resource restrictions within the entrepreneurial ecosystem using signaling theory might help student entrepreneurs get finance and handle hurdles more successfully (Donaldson, et al., 2023). As (Azid, 2023) states that Creating a strong business ecosystem is critical for increasing student entrepreneurial intentions. The study underlines the favorable influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on students’ self-efficacy and goals. Entrepreneurship education improves students’ intentions and behaviors. Practical learning activities, such as company proposal competitions, boost entrepreneurial inclinations. University ecosystems impact entrepreneurial intentions of students positively (Moraes et al., 2023).

Entrepreneurship ecosystem elements

This review explores the various elements of entrepreneurial ecosystems that influence students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Key components include entrepreneurial education, support programs, the presence of entrepreneurship incubators, and industrial collaboration.

Entrepreneurial education

Entrepreneurial education significantly influences students’ intentions towards entrepreneurship. Bergmann et al. (2016) found that organizational factors, such as the proportion of classmates taking entrepreneurship classes, impact students’ decisions to pursue entrepreneurial activities. Entrialgo and Iglesias (2016) and Barba-Sánchez (2017) support the notion that entrepreneurial education strengthens the relationship between subjective norms, entrepreneurial attitudes, and cognitive self-employment processes. Other studies further emphasize the positive effects of entrepreneurial education on motivation and skills, fostering job creators rather than job seekers. Additionally, researchers highlight that entrepreneurial education engenders self-efficacy, risk-taking, and proactive personality among students, ultimately shaping their entrepreneurial intentions.

Entrepreneurial support programs

Support programs are crucial in enhancing students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Liao et al. (2022) found that educational, activity, and commercialization support positively affect entrepreneurial intentions. Malebana (2014) identified a significant relationship between knowledge of entrepreneurial support and factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions. Other studies highlight the positive effects of social and university support, business information seminars, and participation in related activities on entrepreneurial intentions. Zin and Ibrahim (2020) also emphasize the role of governmental and institutional programs in fostering entrepreneurial intentions through training, marketing, networking, and financial support.

Presence and accessibility of entrepreneurship incubators

Entrepreneurship incubators play a vital role in shaping entrepreneurial intentions. Zhang et al. (2022) and Patrício and Maria de Lurdes Silva Duarte (2023) found that perceptions of an incubator’s performance positively impact desirability, self-efficacy, and ultimately entrepreneurial intentions. Arruda et al. (2023) and Martins et al. (2019) emphasize the importance of incubators in providing support and fostering a professional environment, enhancing motivation and productivity. Additionally, Iqbal et al. (2020) and Chen et al. (2014) highlight the positive influence of incubators on entrepreneurial intentions, particularly when combined with entrepreneurial knowledge.

Industrial collaboration

Industrial collaboration is essential for encouraging entrepreneurial pursuits among graduates. Hardiyanto et al. (2022) and Shamsudin et al. (2018) suggest that combining entrepreneurial internships with educational experiences bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, enhancing entrepreneurial intentions post-graduation. Pai et al. (2016) and Matsum (2018) further support the idea that close collaboration with industry enhances entrepreneurial intentions by providing practical experiences and ensuring smooth industry-institute interactions. Jones and Wheadon (2015) highlight the benefits of entrepreneurship education through industry collaboration projects, particularly in engineering education.

The studies examined highlight the relevance of a variety of factors in encouraging students to pursue entrepreneurial goals. Entrepreneurial education, support programs, the establishment of incubators, and industrial partnerships all play important roles in closing the education-entrepreneurship gap and developing future entrepreneurs. The findings emphasize the need of taking a complete strategy to developing entrepreneurial ecosystems in order to successfully foster and encourage students’ entrepreneurial desire. The data is presented in Table 1: summery of the selected study findings and available at: https://github.com/Adissu336/Building-Entrepreneurship-ecosystem-in-higher-education.git

Table 1. Entrepreneurship eco system model.

Models	Components	Key insight
1. Isenberg’s Ecosystem Domains (2010)	Policy, finance, culture, supports, human capital, markets	Entrepreneurship is influenced by a variety of interacting factors.
2. World Economic Forum’s Ecosystem Pillars (2013)	Accessible markets, human capital, funding and finance, support systems, regulatory framework and infrastructure, education and training, major universities, cultural supports	Identifies key pillars essential for the growth and success of entrepreneurial firms.
3. Koltai’s Six + Six Model (2016)	Identify, train, connect & sustain, fund, enable, celebrate; NGOs, foundations, academia, investors, government, corporations	Emphasizes support activities and the role of different actors in fostering entrepreneurship.
4. Spigel’s Ecosystem Attributes (2017)	Social, political, economic, cultural elements	Highlights the importance of a supportive environment.
5. Murray and Budden’s Innovation-Driven Model (2017)	Formal institutions, culture, networks, physical infrastructure, finance, leadership, talent, knowledge, demand, intermediate services	Presents a causal model where ecosystem elements influence productive entrepreneurship through co-evolution.
6. Stam and Van de Ven’s Model (2021)	Institutions, Networks, Leadership, Talent, Knowledge, Finance, Physical Infrastructure, Demand, Intermediate Services, Productive Entrepreneurship	Interplay between different elements and their collective impact on entrepreneurial outcomes.

Table 1: summery of the selected study findings.

This systematic review highlights the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurial ecosystems and their significant impact on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurial education, support programs, the presence of incubators, and industrial collaboration each play a critical role in fostering entrepreneurial intentions among students. Developing a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem within universities can stimulate entrepreneurial activities, enhance self-efficacy, and cultivate an entrepreneurial culture. The findings underscore the importance of creating environments that not only provide knowledge and skills but also practical experiences and support networks essential for nurturing future entrepreneurs.

6. Practical implication

This study offers the following practical implication. First, as the included studies demonstrates that entrepreneurship is one of the most important function to the growth of national economy. How evert, as information collected from the reviewed articles there are several challenge that did not addressed to foster entrepreneurial habits. Therefore, Building entrepreneurship ecosystem through quality education in higher education at scale has therefore should be the top of the national agenda for most national economies. Second, Universities also assume the responsibility of fostering entrepreneurship and actively participating in the community economy. University plays a crucial role in fostering entrepreneurial intentions among students by providing high-quality entrepreneurship education, exposure to successful entrepreneurs, hands-on experiences, workshops, funding, mentorship, and a supportive environment. However, entrepreneurial ecosystem did not established well enough in their educational system to develop entrepreneurial intention among students. Therefore, universities should actively engage in creating a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem tend to see higher levels of entrepreneurial activities among students that emphasizes on creating supportive environment that includes not just formal education but also extracurricular activities, incubators, and networking opportunities.

7. Limitation of the studies and future research suggestions

The researcher identified the following research gabs from 30 reviewed articles. The majority of the studies reviewed are concentrated in Asia, with fewer studies from other continents like Africa, Europe, and North America. This geographical imbalance may limit the generalizability of the findings across different regions. There for future researcher may fill this gab by conducted research on the field in different regional coverage. Second, methodologically there is a dominance of certain methodologies, such as Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), which was used in 11 research articles and multiple regression and descriptive studies. Less frequent use of other methods like logistic regression and conceptualizing papers indicates a potential methodological bias. Thirdly, The reviewed articles shows a strong focus on certain variables like entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial education, while other aspects of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, such as government support, incubators, and industry linkages, are less frequently investigated. This might overlook some critical elements of the ecosystem. Finally This study limited on the studies included span from 2016 to 2023, which might not fully capture the long-term trends and developments in the entrepreneurial ecosystem and intentions. The systematic review is limited to 30 articles collected from specific databases, such as Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Future research can address these gaps by including a broader range of databases and sources. Additionally, it is crucial to consider emerging fields and recent developments in building entrepreneurial intention to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Extended data

The PRISMA checklist and flow diagram for this systematic review are available in Figshare under the project title “PRISMA Checklist and Flow Diagram for Building an Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Higher Education” DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28639046.v1.

The data is held under a CC0 license.

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge all partners for their constructive guidance and valuable comments in all aspects of the work.

References

Arruda EH, Montenegro CB, Vasconcelos CRM: Entrepreneurial Intention of Individuals Linked to Companies’ Incubators: A Study Based on Planned Behavior. International Journal of Business Administration. 2023; 14(1): 75. Publisher Full Text
Astuty E, Yustian OR, Ratnapuri CI: Building Student Entrepreneurship Activities Through the Synergy of the University Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. Frontiers in Education. 2022; 7(June): 1–19. Publisher Full Text
Azid RM: the Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy on the Influence of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem on Entrepreneurial Intentions among Banyuwangi Santri. Ekonomi, Keuangan, Investasi Dan Syariah (EKUITAS). 2023; 4(4): 1317–1324. Publisher Full Text
Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C: Entrepreneurial motivation and self-employment: evidence from expectancy theory. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2017; 13(4): 1097–1115. Publisher Full Text
Bergmann H, Hundt C, Sternberg R: What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics. 2016; 47(1): 53–76. Publisher Full Text
Budden P, Murray F: MIT’s stakeholder framework for building & accelerating innovation ecosystems. Mit. Edu/Assets/MIT-Stakeholder-Fram. 2019. Reference Source
Cantner U, Cunningham JA, Lehmann EE, et al.: Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a dynamic lifecycle model. Small Business Economics. 2021; 57(1): 407–423. Publisher Full Text
Cekule L, Cekuls A, Dunska M: The role of education in fostering entrepreneurial intentions among business students. International Conference on Higher Education Advances. 2023; pp. 615–622. Publisher Full Text
Chen Y, Li S, Zhou C, et al.: TBLR1 fuses to retinoid acid receptor α in a variant t (3; 17)(q26; q21) translocation of acute promyelocytic leukemia, Blood.The Journal of the American Society of Hematology.2014; 124(6): 936–945.
Elnadi M, Gheith MH: Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in higher education: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Management Education. 2021; 19(1): 100458. Publisher Full Text
Entrialgo M, Iglesias V: The moderating role of entrepreneurship education on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2016; 12(4): 1209–1232. Publisher Full Text
Fuller-Love N, Akiode M: Transnational Entrepreneurs Dynamics in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Critical Review. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies. 2020; 6(1): 41–66. Publisher Full Text
Hardiyanto W, Hatimah I, Wahyudin U, et al.: Strategies to improve entrepreneurship skills of youth considering the business and industry effects. Economic Annals-XXI. 2022; 197(5–6): 17–23. Publisher Full Text
Higgins JP, Li T, Deeks JJ: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2019; pp. 143–176. Publisher Full Text
Hoseth A: Google Scholar. The Charleston Advisor. 2011; 12(3): 36–39. Publisher Full Text
Iqbal R, Sarmad M, Shafi Q, et al.: Revealing Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Intention under the moderation of Entrepreneurial Knowledge across Talented Students at Business Incubation Centers. Talent Development & Excellence. 2020; 12(1): 5688–5702. Reference Source
Jamali HR, Nabavi M: Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics. 2015; 105(3): 1635–1651. Publisher Full Text
Jones I, Wheadon C: Peer assessment using comparative and absolute judgement. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2015; 47: 93–101. Publisher Full Text
Kitchenham B: Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University Technical Report. 2014; 33(2004): 1–26.
Liao S, Javed H, Sun L, Abbas M: Influence of entrepreneurship support programs on nascent entrepreneurial intention among university students in China. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13(July): 1–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Magasi Wang Hanbin, P. H. C. & Y. H. O.: Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intention: Case Study of Business Students in Tianjin, China. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Project Management. 2023; 7(2): 89–99. Publisher Full Text
Makai AL, Dory T: Perceived university support and environment as a factor of entrepreneurial intention: Evidence from Western Transdanubia Region. PLoS One. 2023; 18(6 June): e0283850–e0283824. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Malebana MJ: The effect of knowledge of entrepreneurial support on entrepreneurial intention. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2014; 5(20): 1020–1028. Publisher Full Text
Martins JM, Abreu A, Calado JMF: Business Incubator and Economic Development.IntechOpen.2019.Publisher Full Text
Matsum JH: The Entrepreneurial Behavior and Practical Industrial Work Experience as the Determinant Factor of Entrepreneurial Intention. ICEEE. 2018; pp. 351–355. Publisher Full Text
Miller RL: An Introduction to Google Scholar.2019. Reference Source
Nasib Jafarov JS, Hungarian.: Review of entrepreneurial ecosystem models. ASERC Journal of Socio-Economic Studies. 2022; 5(1): 3–16. Publisher Full Text
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Pai AR, Rao PK, Achar AP: Role of Industry Institute Interaction in Making of Entrepreneurs. International Journal of Current Research and Modern Education (IJCRME). 2016; I(I): 2455–5428. Reference Source
Parveen H, Showkat N: Quadrant-I (e-Text).2017. August.
Patrício Maria, de Lurdes Silva Duarte. : Entrepreneurial Universities and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Dynamics, Synergies, and Challenges.Diss. Universidade da Beira Interior (Portugal).2023.
Shamsudin AS, Adelaja AA, Minai MS: Conceptualizing the effect of entrepreneurial education and industrial interface mix in enhancing the entrepreneurial intention amongst graduates. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. 2018; 21(Special Issue): 1–9.
Stam E: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy. European Planning Studies. 2015; 23(9): 1759–1769. Publisher Full Text
Stam E, van de Ven A : Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics. 2021; 56(2): 809–832. Publisher Full Text
Uctu R, Al-Silefanee R: Uncovering the Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Intentions of University Students: an Application of Shapero’S Model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge. 2023; 11(1): 35–50. Publisher Full Text
Vrabec S, Zorko K, Bobek V: Sustainable Start-Up Ecosystems in Terms of Capital Investment and Other Business Opportunities for Corporate Involvement – A Comparative Analysis of Hong Kong and Shenzhen. International Journal of Economics and Finance. 2023; 15(6): 75. Publisher Full Text
World Economic Forum: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Around the Globe and Company Growth Dynamics. Report Summary for the Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2013, September, 36. 2013. Reference Source
Zhang Y, Liu X, Fan L: Understanding Incubated Startups’ Continuance Intention towards Entrepreneurial Incubation Platforms: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022; 14(23). Publisher Full Text
Zin MLM, Ibrahim H: The Influence of Entrepreneurial Supports on Business Performance among Rural Entrepreneurs. Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR. 2020; 2(1): 31–41. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 21 Jul 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Management, Jimma University College of Business and Economics, Jimma, Oromia, 352, Ethiopia
² Jimma University College of Business and Economics, Jimma, Oromia, Ethiopia

Adissu Ketemaw
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Shimels Zewde
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision

Mekonnen Bogale
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Supervision, Validation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 21 Jul 2025, 14:715

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.163278.1

Copyright

© 2025 Ketemaw A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Ketemaw A, Zewde S and Bogale M. Building Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:715 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.163278.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 21 Jul 2025

Views

2

Reviewer Report 19 Sep 2025

Ismail Demirdag, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179598.r409913

I had the opportunity to serve as a referee for the article titled "Building the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review." The article examines the relationship between the entrepreneurial ecosystem and entrepreneurial intentions, particularly highlighting the inclination of students in ... Continue reading

I had the opportunity to serve as a referee for the article titled "Building the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review." The article examines the relationship between the entrepreneurial ecosystem and entrepreneurial intentions, particularly highlighting the inclination of students in higher education toward entrepreneurship.

Although the article's topic is interesting, I must acknowledge some fundamental shortcomings in its approach, methodology, and conclusions. My comments on this matter are as follows:

0. Abstract:
- I recommend rewriting the abstract. It could be more descriptive regarding the importance, scope, data, and contributions of the topic.
1. Introduction:
- This section could be written more broadly to include the purpose, scope, data, and contributions of the study.
2. Entrepreneurship ecosystem model:
- Although the literature review includes numerous studies on the entrepreneurship ecosystem, I must point out that there are also some that have been overlooked. Please see the following examples:
* https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00763-5
* https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1537144
* DOI: 10.1111/etap.12167
* https://doi.org/10.1080/00128775.2024.2354752
*** Also, please pay attention to grammar and spelling rules.
3. Objectives of the review literature:
- Please reconsider the research questions.
2. Screening:
- The numbers in the figure and in the text are not consistent. Please justify the numbers
3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria:
-The number in the text and the graph is different. Why? Need for justification.
4.3 Data Analysis Method:
- Please read the recommended paper carefully; it is a good example of a Systematic Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121749

Figures:
- I recommend redesigning all the figures. They appear quite sloppy. In fact, the entire topic could be summarized in a single table without the figures.

Language:
- The article's language is problematic. Punctuation and grammatical errors are particularly numerous and disturbing.

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

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

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

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

Yes
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

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Entrepreneurship, Regional Economic Development, Environmental Economics, Climate Change, Urbanization, etc

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.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

5

Reviewer Report 18 Sep 2025

Joanna Helman, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179598.r410162

The paper’s stated aim is to advance research by proposing a conceptual framework linking how universities build entrepreneurship ecosystems to the growth of students’ entrepreneurial intentions, based on a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies framed by three research questions (HEI ... Continue reading

The paper’s stated aim is to advance research by proposing a conceptual framework linking how universities build entrepreneurship ecosystems to the growth of students’ entrepreneurial intentions, based on a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies framed by three research questions (HEI roles, how relationships are measured, and the methods/instruments used). While the manuscript promises a conceptual framework, the results are presented as descriptive clusters (education, support programs, incubators, industry links) without an integrative model or mechanisms. The conclusions are confirmatory rather than theory-advancing. More broadly, core elements of transparency, internal consistency, and synthesis rigor are missing. As written, the paper reads like a loosely organized narrative overview with pervasive arithmetic, reporting, and language errors.

1. Major methodological concerns:
1.1 Databases & search sources (contradictory)
Database selection is unclear. In 4.2 (Data collection) the authors state the review “relies heavily on two database sources, Scopus and Web of Science,” but a few paragraphs later (Identification step) they write that Google Scholar “was used as a searching engine.” No reconciled multi-database strategy, deduplication plan, or parallel results are presented. This contradiction alone prevents replication.

1.2 Search specification (insufficient detail)
The search process lacks sufficient detail to be transparent or reproducible. Search strings, Boolean operators, field limits, and language filters are not reported. It is not specified whether terms were queried separately or in combination (e.g., “entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneurship ecosystem,” “entrepreneurship education,” “entrepreneurship support,” “entrepreneurial intentions”). Without this information, the reported counts are not credible. For instance, a Google Scholar query for “entrepreneurship ecosystem” (2015–2024) returns ~240,000 hits, whereas combining all terms at once yields ~306 results for the same window. The paper must clearly define and present the exact search combinations.

1.3 Screening/eligibility rules (vague)
The screening process is not adequately elaborated. The authors note that “source of data, duplication, and article language” were considered and that 418 records were rejected at screening, but they do not operationalize these criteria or explain how decisions were made. The exclusion criteria should be fully specified (e.g., what “source of data” entails and how it triggered inclusion or exclusion). In addition, no dual-reviewer screening or conflict-resolution procedures are described.

1.4 Numerical inconsistencies (pervasive)
The manuscript contains multiple contradictions that undermine credibility:
425 identified; 418 rejected at screening; yet “105 passed to the next level of eligibility.” (425 − 418 ≠ 105)
Eligibility exclusions: 338 in the text vs 388 in the PRISMA figure
Included studies: 23 in the text vs 30 in the figure
Reported percentages imply a denominator of 30 (e.g., “70% (21) quantitative”), not 23
Year-by-year counts do not sum to either 23 or 30
All counts must be reconciled and corrected.

1.5 PRISMA diagram & documentation (poor quality)
The PRISMA diagram is misspelled (“PRISSMA”), and the counts in the figure do not match the narrative. Placement and labeling are weak (see also §3). The paper does not report a registered protocol and does not conduct a risk-of-bias/quality appraisal—both are expected for a systematic review.

1.6 Evidence traceability & data availability
The manuscript lacks an in-paper table of included studies (country, design, sample, measures, effect direction). Instead, it points to an external GitHub “Table 1: summary,” while simultaneously stating “No data are associated with this article,” and referencing a separate Figshare PRISMA checklist. Core evidence must be self-contained in the article or official supplements. The absence of a study-level table and extraction sheet prevents auditability.

2. Responsiveness to research questions:
RQ1 (roles of HEIs): Answered descriptively (education, support, incubators, industry collaboration) but without boundary conditions, contingencies, or counter-evidence.
RQ2 (how relationships are measured): Only partially addressed. Methods (e.g., SEM, regression) are listed, but there is no assessment of measurement validity, comparability, or robustness across studies.
RQ3 (methods/instruments): A descriptive enumeration (surveys dominate) with no critique of instrument quality or the implications of survey/SEM dominance for inference.

3. Results presentation & synthesis quality:
The subsection titled “Unit of analysis used in the studies reviewed” is unclear. It conflates statistical techniques (SEM, regression, PLS, logistic regression, descriptive analyses) with the notion of “unit of analysis,” and it does not provide study-level examples linking methods to constructs or outcomes in entrepreneurship research. More broadly, figures are referenced out of order (e.g., Figure 8 appears before Figure 2), captions include errors (e.g., “Contentment coverage,” likely “Continent coverage”), and several figure numbers/descriptions do not match the text.

4. Findings and discussion:
The “Results and discussion” section reads primarily as a thematic recap, not a true discussion suitable for a systematic review. There is no clearly delineated conclusions section that addresses each research question, weighs the strength and limitations of the evidence, or explains the chosen synthesis approach (e.g., why a meta-analysis was not feasible and how the narrative synthesis was executed). The text reiterates expected positives (education, support programs, incubators, industry links) without examining heterogeneity, boundary conditions, contradictory/null findings, or publication bias, and without illustrating claims with concrete examples from the included studies.

5. References & citation integrity:
The reference list shows integrity and formatting issues, including inconsistent attributions (e.g., “Nasib Jafarov & Hungarian”), missing items cited in the text (e.g., Spigel, 2017), and at least one irrelevant biomedical citation (Chen et al., 2014, acute promyelocytic leukemia). Multiple entries have duplicated links and inconsistent styles. A thorough reference audit is required.

6. Language and formatting (requires comprehensive edit):
The manuscript needs extensive language editing: correct all typos/terminology, fix grammar and syntax, and unify voice (consistently third-person, with either active or passive used judiciously). Standardize headings, figure/table captions, and ensure capitalization at paragraph starts. Correct misspellings in figures and keywords.

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

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

No
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

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.)

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Innovation ecosystems, entrepreneurial education, technopreneurship, SME transformation

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.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

5

Reviewer Report 10 Sep 2025

Brilliant Asmit, Universitas Riau (Ringgold ID: 175475), Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179598.r409912

The first thing I am concerned about is the English writing. There are so many mistakes (e.g., “summery”, “therefor”, “inattention”, repetitive sentences, missed punctuation, inappropriate capital letters) that should be addressed for a good quality scientific article. Please reread your ... Continue reading

The first thing I am concerned about is the English writing. There are so many mistakes (e.g., “summery”, “therefor”, “inattention”, repetitive sentences, missed punctuation, inappropriate capital letters) that should be addressed for a good quality scientific article. Please reread your article thoroughly.
The article title may seem to describe the entrepreneurial ecosystem in general, but the article focuses on the specific entrepreneurial ecosystem within HEIs. Therefore, the title needs to be tailored to the topic, as should the keywords. This way, readers interested in learning about the entrepreneurial ecosystem studies of HEIs will more quickly find your article. It's similar to the effort you put into finding suitable articles to review.
The diagrams don't really help readers understand your study because they illustrate a small amount of data, namely 23 articles. Unless the figure represents a large amount of data. Furthermore, the diagrams' presentation is poor, as they contain unnecessary information, such as the "Axis Title" (Figure 6), two "Indonesia" entries in Figure 5, and uninformative captions (e.g., lacking information on time coverage). Additionally, the narrative explanations don't align with the figures.

Method
Section 4.2 states that this study relies on Scopus and Web of Science; however, it appears that Google Scholar is also being used in the process. It should be an explanation of how the authors collect the articles. Moreover, the article should state and be consistent with the protocol of collecting, screening, and inclusion of articles. I cannot easily follow the numbers in section 4.2. There should be an explanation of how the authors selected 30 or 23 articles from more than 400, citing them as “unrelated”. Moreover, the numbers displayed in Figure 1 are different from the narration.
While in the analysis method (section 4.3), there is no clear explanation why the study used a specific analysis method (such as content analysis). Do the authors apply coding systems? And how do Authors benefit from the analysis? Why should the author categorize “qualitative and qualitative” research?
The clear research design would make it easier for readers to understand how the authors synthesize the reviewed literature. There should be a systematic explanation of how the authors come up with themes of entrepreneurial support programs, entrepreneurship incubators, and industrial collaboration.

Other concerns:
Some citations lack reference information, e.g., Gupta (2022) and Koltai (2016).
The data shared should be the actual data analyzed, not a PRISMA framework.

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

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

No
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No
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.)

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: entrepreneurship ecosystem; regional entrepreneurship; rural entrepreneurship

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.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 21 Jul 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 21 Jul 25	read	read	read

Brilliant Asmit, Universitas Riau (Ringgold ID: 175475), Pekanbaru, Indonesia
Joanna Helman, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland
Ismail Demirdag, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

19 Sep 2025 | for Version 1

Ismail Demirdag, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

I had the opportunity to serve as a referee for the article titled "Building the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review." The article examines the relationship between the entrepreneurial ecosystem and entrepreneurial intentions, particularly highlighting the inclination of students in higher education toward entrepreneurship.

Although the article's topic is interesting, I must acknowledge some fundamental shortcomings in its approach, methodology, and conclusions. My comments on this matter are as follows:

0. Abstract:
- I recommend rewriting the abstract. It could be more descriptive regarding the importance, scope, data, and contributions of the topic.
1. Introduction:
- This section could be written more broadly to include the purpose, scope, data, and contributions of the study.
2. Entrepreneurship ecosystem model:
- Although the literature review includes numerous studies on the entrepreneurship ecosystem, I must point out that there are also some that have been overlooked. Please see the following examples:
* https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00763-5
* https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1537144
* DOI: 10.1111/etap.12167
* https://doi.org/10.1080/00128775.2024.2354752
*** Also, please pay attention to grammar and spelling rules.
3. Objectives of the review literature:
- Please reconsider the research questions.
2. Screening:
- The numbers in the figure and in the text are not consistent. Please justify the numbers
3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria:
-The number in the text and the graph is different. Why? Need for justification.
4.3 Data Analysis Method:
- Please read the recommended paper carefully; it is a good example of a Systematic Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121749

Figures:
- I recommend redesigning all the figures. They appear quite sloppy. In fact, the entire topic could be summarized in a single table without the figures.

Language:
- The article's language is problematic. Punctuation and grammatical errors are particularly numerous and disturbing.

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

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

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

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

Yes
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

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Entrepreneurship, Regional Economic Development, Environmental Economics, Climate Change, Urbanization, etc

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.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

18 Sep 2025 | for Version 1

Joanna Helman, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

The paper’s stated aim is to advance research by proposing a conceptual framework linking how universities build entrepreneurship ecosystems to the growth of students’ entrepreneurial intentions, based on a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies framed by three research questions (HEI roles, how relationships are measured, and the methods/instruments used). While the manuscript promises a conceptual framework, the results are presented as descriptive clusters (education, support programs, incubators, industry links) without an integrative model or mechanisms. The conclusions are confirmatory rather than theory-advancing. More broadly, core elements of transparency, internal consistency, and synthesis rigor are missing. As written, the paper reads like a loosely organized narrative overview with pervasive arithmetic, reporting, and language errors.

1. Major methodological concerns:
1.1 Databases & search sources (contradictory)
Database selection is unclear. In 4.2 (Data collection) the authors state the review “relies heavily on two database sources, Scopus and Web of Science,” but a few paragraphs later (Identification step) they write that Google Scholar “was used as a searching engine.” No reconciled multi-database strategy, deduplication plan, or parallel results are presented. This contradiction alone prevents replication.

1.2 Search specification (insufficient detail)
The search process lacks sufficient detail to be transparent or reproducible. Search strings, Boolean operators, field limits, and language filters are not reported. It is not specified whether terms were queried separately or in combination (e.g., “entrepreneurship,” “entrepreneurship ecosystem,” “entrepreneurship education,” “entrepreneurship support,” “entrepreneurial intentions”). Without this information, the reported counts are not credible. For instance, a Google Scholar query for “entrepreneurship ecosystem” (2015–2024) returns ~240,000 hits, whereas combining all terms at once yields ~306 results for the same window. The paper must clearly define and present the exact search combinations.

1.3 Screening/eligibility rules (vague)
The screening process is not adequately elaborated. The authors note that “source of data, duplication, and article language” were considered and that 418 records were rejected at screening, but they do not operationalize these criteria or explain how decisions were made. The exclusion criteria should be fully specified (e.g., what “source of data” entails and how it triggered inclusion or exclusion). In addition, no dual-reviewer screening or conflict-resolution procedures are described.

1.4 Numerical inconsistencies (pervasive)
The manuscript contains multiple contradictions that undermine credibility:
425 identified; 418 rejected at screening; yet “105 passed to the next level of eligibility.” (425 − 418 ≠ 105)
Eligibility exclusions: 338 in the text vs 388 in the PRISMA figure
Included studies: 23 in the text vs 30 in the figure
Reported percentages imply a denominator of 30 (e.g., “70% (21) quantitative”), not 23
Year-by-year counts do not sum to either 23 or 30
All counts must be reconciled and corrected.

1.5 PRISMA diagram & documentation (poor quality)
The PRISMA diagram is misspelled (“PRISSMA”), and the counts in the figure do not match the narrative. Placement and labeling are weak (see also §3). The paper does not report a registered protocol and does not conduct a risk-of-bias/quality appraisal—both are expected for a systematic review.

1.6 Evidence traceability & data availability
The manuscript lacks an in-paper table of included studies (country, design, sample, measures, effect direction). Instead, it points to an external GitHub “Table 1: summary,” while simultaneously stating “No data are associated with this article,” and referencing a separate Figshare PRISMA checklist. Core evidence must be self-contained in the article or official supplements. The absence of a study-level table and extraction sheet prevents auditability.

2. Responsiveness to research questions:
RQ1 (roles of HEIs): Answered descriptively (education, support, incubators, industry collaboration) but without boundary conditions, contingencies, or counter-evidence.
RQ2 (how relationships are measured): Only partially addressed. Methods (e.g., SEM, regression) are listed, but there is no assessment of measurement validity, comparability, or robustness across studies.
RQ3 (methods/instruments): A descriptive enumeration (surveys dominate) with no critique of instrument quality or the implications of survey/SEM dominance for inference.

3. Results presentation & synthesis quality:
The subsection titled “Unit of analysis used in the studies reviewed” is unclear. It conflates statistical techniques (SEM, regression, PLS, logistic regression, descriptive analyses) with the notion of “unit of analysis,” and it does not provide study-level examples linking methods to constructs or outcomes in entrepreneurship research. More broadly, figures are referenced out of order (e.g., Figure 8 appears before Figure 2), captions include errors (e.g., “Contentment coverage,” likely “Continent coverage”), and several figure numbers/descriptions do not match the text.

4. Findings and discussion:
The “Results and discussion” section reads primarily as a thematic recap, not a true discussion suitable for a systematic review. There is no clearly delineated conclusions section that addresses each research question, weighs the strength and limitations of the evidence, or explains the chosen synthesis approach (e.g., why a meta-analysis was not feasible and how the narrative synthesis was executed). The text reiterates expected positives (education, support programs, incubators, industry links) without examining heterogeneity, boundary conditions, contradictory/null findings, or publication bias, and without illustrating claims with concrete examples from the included studies.

5. References & citation integrity:
The reference list shows integrity and formatting issues, including inconsistent attributions (e.g., “Nasib Jafarov & Hungarian”), missing items cited in the text (e.g., Spigel, 2017), and at least one irrelevant biomedical citation (Chen et al., 2014, acute promyelocytic leukemia). Multiple entries have duplicated links and inconsistent styles. A thorough reference audit is required.

6. Language and formatting (requires comprehensive edit):
The manuscript needs extensive language editing: correct all typos/terminology, fix grammar and syntax, and unify voice (consistently third-person, with either active or passive used judiciously). Standardize headings, figure/table captions, and ensure capitalization at paragraph starts. Correct misspellings in figures and keywords.

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

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

No
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

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.)

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Innovation ecosystems, entrepreneurial education, technopreneurship, SME transformation

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.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

10 Sep 2025 | for Version 1

Brilliant Asmit, Universitas Riau (Ringgold ID: 175475), Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

The first thing I am concerned about is the English writing. There are so many mistakes (e.g., “summery”, “therefor”, “inattention”, repetitive sentences, missed punctuation, inappropriate capital letters) that should be addressed for a good quality scientific article. Please reread your article thoroughly.
The article title may seem to describe the entrepreneurial ecosystem in general, but the article focuses on the specific entrepreneurial ecosystem within HEIs. Therefore, the title needs to be tailored to the topic, as should the keywords. This way, readers interested in learning about the entrepreneurial ecosystem studies of HEIs will more quickly find your article. It's similar to the effort you put into finding suitable articles to review.
The diagrams don't really help readers understand your study because they illustrate a small amount of data, namely 23 articles. Unless the figure represents a large amount of data. Furthermore, the diagrams' presentation is poor, as they contain unnecessary information, such as the "Axis Title" (Figure 6), two "Indonesia" entries in Figure 5, and uninformative captions (e.g., lacking information on time coverage). Additionally, the narrative explanations don't align with the figures.

Method
Section 4.2 states that this study relies on Scopus and Web of Science; however, it appears that Google Scholar is also being used in the process. It should be an explanation of how the authors collect the articles. Moreover, the article should state and be consistent with the protocol of collecting, screening, and inclusion of articles. I cannot easily follow the numbers in section 4.2. There should be an explanation of how the authors selected 30 or 23 articles from more than 400, citing them as “unrelated”. Moreover, the numbers displayed in Figure 1 are different from the narration.
While in the analysis method (section 4.3), there is no clear explanation why the study used a specific analysis method (such as content analysis). Do the authors apply coding systems? And how do Authors benefit from the analysis? Why should the author categorize “qualitative and qualitative” research?
The clear research design would make it easier for readers to understand how the authors synthesize the reviewed literature. There should be a systematic explanation of how the authors come up with themes of entrepreneurial support programs, entrepreneurship incubators, and industrial collaboration.

Other concerns:
Some citations lack reference information, e.g., Gupta (2022) and Koltai (2016).
The data shared should be the actual data analyzed, not a PRISMA framework.

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

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

No
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No
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.)

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

entrepreneurship ecosystem; regional entrepreneurship; rural entrepreneurship

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.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] Arruda EH, Montenegro CB, Vasconcelos CRM: Entrepreneurial Intention of Individuals Linked to Companies’ Incubators: A Study Based on Planned Behavior. International Journal of Business Administration. 2023; 14(1): 75. Publisher Full Text

[2] Astuty E, Yustian OR, Ratnapuri CI: Building Student Entrepreneurship Activities Through the Synergy of the University Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. Frontiers in Education. 2022; 7(June): 1–19. Publisher Full Text

[3] Azid RM: the Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy on the Influence of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem on Entrepreneurial Intentions among Banyuwangi Santri. Ekonomi, Keuangan, Investasi Dan Syariah (EKUITAS). 2023; 4(4): 1317–1324. Publisher Full Text

[4] Barba-Sánchez V, Atienza-Sahuquillo C: Entrepreneurial motivation and self-employment: evidence from expectancy theory. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2017; 13(4): 1097–1115. Publisher Full Text

[5] Bergmann H, Hundt C, Sternberg R: What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics. 2016; 47(1): 53–76. Publisher Full Text

[6] Budden P, Murray F: MIT’s stakeholder framework for building & accelerating innovation ecosystems. Mit. Edu/Assets/MIT-Stakeholder-Fram. 2019. Reference Source

[7] Cantner U, Cunningham JA, Lehmann EE, et al.: Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a dynamic lifecycle model. Small Business Economics. 2021; 57(1): 407–423. Publisher Full Text

[8] Cekule L, Cekuls A, Dunska M: The role of education in fostering entrepreneurial intentions among business students. International Conference on Higher Education Advances. 2023; pp. 615–622. Publisher Full Text

[9] Chen Y, Li S, Zhou C, et al.: TBLR1 fuses to retinoid acid receptor α in a variant t (3; 17)(q26; q21) translocation of acute promyelocytic leukemia, Blood.The Journal of the American Society of Hematology.2014; 124(6): 936–945.

[10] Elnadi M, Gheith MH: Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in higher education: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Management Education. 2021; 19(1): 100458. Publisher Full Text

[11] Entrialgo M, Iglesias V: The moderating role of entrepreneurship education on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2016; 12(4): 1209–1232. Publisher Full Text

[12] Fuller-Love N, Akiode M: Transnational Entrepreneurs Dynamics in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Critical Review. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies. 2020; 6(1): 41–66. Publisher Full Text

[13] Hardiyanto W, Hatimah I, Wahyudin U, et al.: Strategies to improve entrepreneurship skills of youth considering the business and industry effects. Economic Annals-XXI. 2022; 197(5–6): 17–23. Publisher Full Text

[14] Higgins JP, Li T, Deeks JJ: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2019; pp. 143–176. Publisher Full Text

[15] Hoseth A: Google Scholar. The Charleston Advisor. 2011; 12(3): 36–39. Publisher Full Text

[16] Iqbal R, Sarmad M, Shafi Q, et al.: Revealing Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Intention under the moderation of Entrepreneurial Knowledge across Talented Students at Business Incubation Centers. Talent Development & Excellence. 2020; 12(1): 5688–5702. Reference Source

[17] Jamali HR, Nabavi M: Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics. 2015; 105(3): 1635–1651. Publisher Full Text

[18] Jones I, Wheadon C: Peer assessment using comparative and absolute judgement. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2015; 47: 93–101. Publisher Full Text

[19] Kitchenham B: Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University Technical Report. 2014; 33(2004): 1–26.

[20] Liao S, Javed H, Sun L, Abbas M: Influence of entrepreneurship support programs on nascent entrepreneurial intention among university students in China. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13(July): 1–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] Magasi Wang Hanbin, P. H. C. & Y. H. O.: Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intention: Case Study of Business Students in Tianjin, China. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Project Management. 2023; 7(2): 89–99. Publisher Full Text

[22] Makai AL, Dory T: Perceived university support and environment as a factor of entrepreneurial intention: Evidence from Western Transdanubia Region. PLoS One. 2023; 18(6 June): e0283850–e0283824. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] Malebana MJ: The effect of knowledge of entrepreneurial support on entrepreneurial intention. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2014; 5(20): 1020–1028. Publisher Full Text

[24] Martins JM, Abreu A, Calado JMF: Business Incubator and Economic Development.IntechOpen.2019.Publisher Full Text

[25] Matsum JH: The Entrepreneurial Behavior and Practical Industrial Work Experience as the Determinant Factor of Entrepreneurial Intention. ICEEE. 2018; pp. 351–355. Publisher Full Text

[26] Miller RL: An Introduction to Google Scholar.2019. Reference Source

[27] Nasib Jafarov JS, Hungarian.: Review of entrepreneurial ecosystem models. ASERC Journal of Socio-Economic Studies. 2022; 5(1): 3–16. Publisher Full Text

[28] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] Pai AR, Rao PK, Achar AP: Role of Industry Institute Interaction in Making of Entrepreneurs. International Journal of Current Research and Modern Education (IJCRME). 2016; I(I): 2455–5428. Reference Source

[30] Parveen H, Showkat N: Quadrant-I (e-Text).2017. August.

[31] Patrício Maria, de Lurdes Silva Duarte. : Entrepreneurial Universities and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Dynamics, Synergies, and Challenges.Diss. Universidade da Beira Interior (Portugal).2023.

[32] Shamsudin AS, Adelaja AA, Minai MS: Conceptualizing the effect of entrepreneurial education and industrial interface mix in enhancing the entrepreneurial intention amongst graduates. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. 2018; 21(Special Issue): 1–9.

[33] Stam E: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy. European Planning Studies. 2015; 23(9): 1759–1769. Publisher Full Text

[34] Stam E, van de Ven A : Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics. 2021; 56(2): 809–832. Publisher Full Text

[35] Uctu R, Al-Silefanee R: Uncovering the Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Intentions of University Students: an Application of Shapero’S Model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge. 2023; 11(1): 35–50. Publisher Full Text

[36] Vrabec S, Zorko K, Bobek V: Sustainable Start-Up Ecosystems in Terms of Capital Investment and Other Business Opportunities for Corporate Involvement – A Comparative Analysis of Hong Kong and Shenzhen. International Journal of Economics and Finance. 2023; 15(6): 75. Publisher Full Text

[37] World Economic Forum: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Around the Globe and Company Growth Dynamics. Report Summary for the Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2013, September, 36. 2013. Reference Source

[38] Zhang Y, Liu X, Fan L: Understanding Incubated Startups’ Continuance Intention towards Entrepreneurial Incubation Platforms: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022; 14(23). Publisher Full Text

[39] Zin MLM, Ibrahim H: The Influence of Entrepreneurial Supports on Business Performance among Rural Entrepreneurs. Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR. 2020; 2(1): 31–41. Publisher Full Text

Building Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Entrepreneurship ecosystem model

3. Objectives of the review literature

4. Method

4.1 Research design

4.2 Data collection and searching strategy

Figure 1. PRISSMA protocol. Source: developed by the authors.

4.3 Method of data analysis

5. Result and discussion

5.1 Characteristics of the study

Figure 2. Types of the study reviewed. Source: developed by the authors.

Figure 3. Year of publication. Source: developed by the authors.

Figure 4. Method of data collection used. Source: developed by the authors.

Figure 5. Countries coverage. Source: developed by the authors.

Figure 6. Contentment coverage. Source: developed by the authors.

Figure 7. Unit of analysis used. Source: developed by the authors.

Figure 8. Research variables. Source: developed by the authors.

5.2 Summary of the review studies key finding

Table 1. Entrepreneurship eco system model.

6. Practical implication

7. Limitation of the studies and future research suggestions

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgement

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated