F1000Research F1000Research 2046-1402 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/f1000research.163278.3 Systematic Review Articles Building Entrepreneurship Ecosystem:  A Systematic Review

[version 3; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 6 not approved]

 Ketemaw Adissu Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Investigation Methodology Project Administration Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7230-9213 a 1 Zewde Shimels Investigation Methodology Project Administration Supervision https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3960-3277 1 Bogale Mekonnen Conceptualization Data Curation Investigation Supervision Validation https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2209-4810 2 Management, Jimma University College of Business and Economics, Jimma, Oromia, 352, Ethiopia Jimma University College of Business and Economics, Jimma, Oromia, Ethiopia adissuketemaw8@gmail.com

No competing interests were disclosed.

 20 2 2026 2025 14 715 9 2 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Ketemaw A et al. 2026 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The primary objective of this study is to advance research by providing a conceptual framework for entrepreneurship ecosystem building and the growth of entrepreneurship intention among students in higher education institutions. 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 a future research direction was suggested for future researchers.

 Entrepreneurship Ecosystem and Entrepreneurial inattention The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Amendments from Version 2

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback and continued guidance. In this third version, we thoroughly revised the manuscript to correct language and clarity issues, improved the quality and relevance of all figures and tables removing meaningless labels and converting some figures into tables for better readability and clarified the analytical methods, including SEM, multiple regression, PLS, and other approaches, ensuring consistency between the text and data. Additionally, we reorganized sections to enhance the logical flow of the study, making it easier for readers to follow the objectives, results, and discussion. We believe these revisions fully address the reviewers’ comments and substantially improve the manuscript.

 List of abbreviations SR

Systematic Review

 PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

 SEM

Structure Equation Modeling

 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; Uctu & Al-Silefanee, 2023).

The entrepreneurial ecosystem is a network of interrelated actors and variables that support productive entrepreneurship ( Stam, 2015). In this study, the ecosystem is seen as universities’ practice building an 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. Therefore, this study aims to review how higher education contributes to building an entrepreneurship ecosystem and knowledge production that fosters student entrepreneurial intention to pursue self-employment and 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 an ecosystem, each contributing uniquely to the understanding of these systems. Nasib Jafarov & Hungarian (2022) summarized six Entrepreneurship ecosystem models. Accordingly, the assumptions and the appropriateness of the models for these studies are discussed as follows. Ecosystem Domains by Isenberg (2016). 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 the 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.

An 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), the Innovation-driven entrepreneurship approach 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.

Entrepreneurship ecosystem model.
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.
3. Objectives of the review of the 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 institutions. 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.

What are the positions of higher education roles in building entrepreneurial ecosystems to support enhancing student entrepreneurial intentions?

How is the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystem support and student entrepreneurial intentions measured?

What types of methods and instruments are used to study entrepreneurial ecosystems and student entrepreneurial intentions?

4. Method 4.1 Research design

In this study, a systematic review method of research design was employed. A 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 address the concerns of what methods and procedures are used to study the entrepreneurship ecosystem, how knowledge has improved related to the entrepreneurship ecosystem and entrepreneurial intentions, and what we will do in the future to build an effective entrepreneurial ecosystem for enhancing students' entrepreneurial intentions.

 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 database sources, Scopus and Web of Science, to identify and choose relevant, trustworthy, and noteworthy literature. Because these two databases are internationally recognized as the most comprehensive, reliable, and authoritative sources of scholarly information. They provide access to high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and books across multiple disciplines. Using these databases ensures that the literature selected is credible, up-to-date, and widely cited, which strengthens the validity of the research. Moreover, both Scopus and Web of science offer advanced search and citation-tracking tools that help identify influential studies, assess research trends, and avoid the inclusion of predatory or low-quality publications. 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.

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.

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 search engine, for those research indexed in both Scopus and Web of science since Google Scholar is an online search engine that helps to find scholarly data from academic publishers ( Hoseth, 2011; Jamali & Nabavi, 2015; Miller, 2019). In this case, a total of 425 articles were identified and collected from both Scopus and web of Science-indexed articles and journal.

Screening

During the screening stage, the source of data, duplication, and article language were all taken into account. As a result, 7 articles were rejected during this stage. On the other side, 318 articles were chosen and passed to the next level of eligibility.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

During this stage, 386 articles were rejected. On the other hand, 32 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 quantitative 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 mentioned. Finally, the conclusion was drowning based on the results. And also the researcher identified the opportunity of this study to suggest to 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 institutions. To achieve this objective, descriptive and content analysis methods were used to reach the conclusion, recommendations, and future research.

5.1 Characteristics of the study

Types of the study reviewed

According to Table 2, quantitative research received the greatest attention, accounting for 53.1% (17 studies), indicating a strong preference for measurable data and statistical analysis. Qualitative research constitutes 34.4% (11 studies), reflecting a moderate reliance on exploratory and non-numerical approaches. Mixed-method research represents the smallest proportion at 12.5% (4 studies), suggesting limited integration of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Overall, the findings indicate that quantitative techniques remain the dominant methodological approach for assessing the entrepreneurship environment and entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Distribution of articles by year of publication (2016–2023) Distribution of research types.
Research type Frequency Percentage (%)
Quantitative 17 53.1
Qualitative 11 34.4
Mixed method 4 12.5
Total 32 100

As Figure 2 below presents the distribution of articles by year of publication from 2016 to 2023. The number of publications was relatively low between 2016 and 2019, indicating limited scholarly attention during this period. However, a noticeable increase occurred from 2020 onward, with the highest number of publications recorded in 2020, 2022, and 2023 (six articles each). This trend suggests a growing research interest in the topic in recent years.

Distribution of articles by year of publication (2016–2023).

Source: developed by the authors.

 Method of data collection used.

Source: developed by the authors.

Method of data collection used

According to the graph in Figure 3, 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.

Countries coverage.

Source: developed by the authors.

Regional wise coverage of the studies reviewed

The review article in this study was collected from different databases that included studies conducted in different countries in the world. The study’s country coverage and its content were presented and analyzed as follows.

Countries coverage

The graph above ( Figure 4) 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.

Source: developed by the authors.

Contentment coverage

According to the below graph in Figure 5, 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.

Unit of analysis used in the studies reviewed

According to Table 3 in the reviewed studies, SEM analysis was the most commonly used method (34.4%), reflecting a preference for advanced statistical modeling, while multiple regression (18.8%) and basic descriptive studies (6.2% combined) were also applied to examine correlations and patterns. Less frequently used methods included partial least squares (6.3%), conceptual papers (6.3%), and logistic regression (3.1%), and a significant share (25%) either employed other approaches or did not specify their method. Overall, the findings indicate a mix of sophisticated and fundamental analytical approaches, with a clear emphasis on complex modeling techniques like SEM.

Variables review in the studies Distribution of analytical methods used in the reviewed.
Analytical method Frequency Percentage (%)
SEM analysis 11 34.4
Partial Least Squares (PLS) 2 6.3
Descriptive and Multiple Analysis 1 3.1
Descriptive Study 1 3.1
Multiple Regression 6 18.8
Logistic Regression 1 3.1
Conceptualizing Paper 2 6.3
Other/Not specified methods 8 25.0
Total 32 100

As shown in Figure 6, 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 mindset, and behavioral controls.

Research variables.

Source: developed by the authors.

 5.2 Summary of the review studies’ key findings

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, and Entrepreneurship Education fosters entrepreneurial intentions in students. Synergy between internal and external environments 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 students’ entrepreneurial intention ( Gupta, 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 & Villagrasa, 2024). As Azid (2023) states, 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 the entrepreneurial intentions of students positively ( Moraes et al., 2023).

Entrepreneurship ecosystem themes

The author tries to classify the entrepreneurial ecosystem elements into four themes: entrepreneurial education, Entrepreneurial support, availability and accessibility of incubation centers and industrial linkage of university as discussed in the analysis summery of the study. 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 to take a complete strategy to develop 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

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, the included studies demonstrate that entrepreneurship is one of the most important functions for the growth of the national economy. However, as information collected from the reviewed articles suggests, there are several challenges that were not addressed to foster entrepreneurial habits. Therefore, building an entrepreneurship ecosystem through quality education in higher education at scale 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, the entrepreneurial ecosystem was 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 to see higher levels of entrepreneurial activities among students, which emphasizes creating a supportive environment that includes not just formal education but also extracurricular activities, incubators, and networking opportunities.

 7. Limitations of the studies and future research suggestions

The researcher identified the following research gaps from 23 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. Therefore, future researchers may fill this gap by conducting research in 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 show 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 is limited to the studies included, which 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. 10.5430/ijba.v14n1p75 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. 10.3389/feduc.2022.757012 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. 10.47065/ekuitas.v4i4.3304 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. 10.1007/s11365-017-0441-8 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. 10.1007/s11187-016-9700-6 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 : Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a dynamic lifecycle model. Small Business Economics. 2021;57(1):407–423. 10.1007/s11187-020-00316-0 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. 10.4995/HEAd23.2023.16159 Chen Y Li S Zhou C : 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. Donaldson C Villagrasa J : Integrative Entrepreneurship Education: The Case of EDEM Business School. Journal of Management and Business Education. 2024;7(3):419–434. https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2024.0023 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. 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100458 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. 10.1007/s11365-016-0389-4 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. 10.1177/2393957519881921 Gupta RK : Role of university entrepreneurial ecosystem and entrepreneurial self-efficacy in shaping entrepreneurial intention.In Promoting Entrepreneurship to Reduce Graduate Unemployment. IGI Global Scientific Publishing;2022; pp.149–163. 10.4018/978-1-7998-9581-7.ch008 Hardiyanto W Hatimah I Wahyudin U : Strategies to improve entrepreneurship skills of youth considering the business and industry effects. Economic Annals-XXI. 2022;197(5–6):17–23. 10.21003/ea.V197-03 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. 10.1002/9781119536604.ch6 Hoseth A : Google Scholar. The Charleston Advisor. 2011;12(3):36–39. 10.5260/chara.12.3.36 Iqbal R Sarmad M Shafi Q : 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 Isenberg DJ : Applying the ecosystem metaphor to entrepreneurship: Uses and abuses. Antitrust Bulletin. 2016;61(4):564–573. 10.1177/0003603X16676162 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. 10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2 Jones I Wheadon C : Peer assessment using comparative and absolute judgement. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2015;47:93–101. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.09.004 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. 35936255 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955591 PMC9355522 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. 10.53819/81018102t5190 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. 37319255 10.1371/journal.pone.0283850 PMC10270642 Malebana MJ : The effect of knowledge of entrepreneurial support on entrepreneurial intention. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2014;5(20):1020–1028. 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1020 Martins JM Abreu A Calado JMF : Business Incubator and Economic Development. IntechOpen. 2019. 10.5772/INTECHOPEN.88562 Matsum JH : The Entrepreneurial Behavior and Practical Industrial Work Experience as the Determinant Factor of Entrepreneurial Intention. ICEEE. 2018; pp.351–355. 10.5220/0006886003510355 Miller RL : An Introduction to Google Scholar. 2019. Reference Source Moraes GHSM Fischer BB Guerrero M : An inquiry into the linkages between university ecosystem and students’ entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2023;60(1):134–145. 10.1080/14703297.2021.1969262 Nasib Jafarov JS Hungarian. : Review of entrepreneurial ecosystem models. ASERC Journal of Socio-Economic Studies. 2022;5(1):3–16. 10.30546/2663-7251.2022.5.1.3 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM : The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. 33782057 10.1136/bmj.n71 PMC8005924 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 Lurdes Silva Duarte. de : 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. 10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484 Stam E Ven A van de : Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics. 2021;56(2):809–832. 10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6 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. 10.37335/ijek.v11i1.182 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. 10.5539/ijef.v15n6p75 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). 10.3390/su142315802 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. 10.33166/acdmhr.2020.01.004 10.5256/f1000research.195310.r460780 Reviewer response for version 3 Millones Liza Dany Yudet 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3672-461X Universidad Peruana Unión, Lima, Peru

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 6 4 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Millones Liza DY 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

The revised version has been reviewed, and I regret to inform you that the authors have not addressed the issues raised, resulting in serious critical deficiencies in the manuscript.

The abstract does not specify the databases consulted. The search query is not identified for validation purposes, inclusion and exclusion criteria are not specified, and other issues remain unresolved. Because these fundamental aspects are not addressed, this manuscript cannot be indexed.

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

No

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

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

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?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

consumer behaviormarketingentrepreneurshipeducation

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.

 10.5256/f1000research.195310.r460777 Reviewer response for version 3 Asmit Brilliant 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2791-4596 Universitas Riau (Ringgold ID: 175475), Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 1 4 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Asmit B 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

Thank you for inviting me to re-review the third version of this article. I conclude that the author did not revise the article at all. The same mistakes from the first version occur in the latest version. The authors did not address my comments and have no explanation for:

1. The English writing is still incorrect and full of errors (summery, "methode," repetitive sentences, missed punctuation, contentment/contentent). Similarly, the figures are poorly presented. For example, it is incomprehensible why the authors placed two "Indonesia" in Figure 4, which leads to misinformation in the text. Similarly, in Figure 3, the authors placed three "interviews" in the bar chart. The authors need to understand what they are writing in their article.

2. The link (https://github.com/Adissu336/Building-Entrepreneurship-ecosystem-in-higher-education.git) shared by the authors does not help readers understand the article.

3. Explanation of the data source: Inconsistency of the data source is shown by the article. Is the data collected from Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web Science (see Section 4.1, eligibility criteria, and Figure 1)?

4. No explanation on how 23 articles were selected instead of 32 articles.

5. Why should the author categorize “qualitative and quantitative” research in the first place? What is the contribution of splitting these approaches (Table 2, and again, you mention 32 articles in the Table, why not 23 articles?).

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

Partly

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.)

No

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 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.

References : Uncovering the building blocks of rural entrepreneurship: A comprehensive framework for mapping the components of rural entrepreneurial ecosystems. Heliyon .2024;10(1) : 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24139 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24139 10.5256/f1000research.195310.r462009 Reviewer response for version 3 Sulistyowati Raya 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2715-1469 Putra Timur Yan 1 Co-referee Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 13 3 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Sulistyowati R and Putra Timur Y 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

This article presents a systematic review examining the role of the university entrepreneurship ecosystem in shaping students’ entrepreneurial intentions. The authors synthesize literature addressing several ecosystem components within higher education institutions, including entrepreneurship education, support programs, business incubators, and collaboration with industry. The review follows a PRISMA-based approach using articles retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases within the period 2015–2024. The analysis is mainly descriptive, categorizing studies according to research methods, data collection approaches, and geographical distribution. The findings indicate that quantitative survey-based studies dominate this research area. However, several methodological aspects of the review, particularly regarding transparency and analytical depth, require further clarification and improvement.

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

Answer: Partly

The article explains the importance of the university entrepreneurship ecosystem and its relationship with students’ entrepreneurial intentions. However, the rationale for conducting a systematic review is not fully developed because the manuscript does not clearly demonstrate the specific research gap that this review aims to address. Although the objectives are mentioned, they are not consistently linked with a clear research framework or explicit research questions. The authors should clarify the research gap, explain why a systematic review is necessary in this field, and formulate more specific research questions to strengthen the scholarly contribution of the study.

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

Answer: No

The methodological description is not sufficiently detailed to allow replication of the study. The manuscript does not fully present the complete search strategy, including search strings, Boolean operators, database-specific filters, and search limitations. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the reported number of articles at different stages of the screening process between the PRISMA diagram and the text. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are also described only in general terms. To improve methodological transparency, the authors should provide the full search strategy, clearer inclusion and exclusion criteria, a consistent PRISMA flow explanation, and a comprehensive table summarizing the reviewed studies.

3. Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Answer: Not applicable

The review does not employ statistical analysis or meta-analysis. Instead, it relies on descriptive categorization and thematic discussion of the selected studies. This approach can be acceptable considering the potential heterogeneity of the studies included in the review. Nevertheless, the authors should explicitly explain why a meta-analysis was not conducted and provide a clearer description of the narrative synthesis approach used to interpret and integrate findings from the literature.

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

Answer: Partly

The conclusions generally align with the themes identified in the reviewed literature, particularly regarding the importance of entrepreneurship education, support programs, incubators, and university–industry collaboration in fostering students’ entrepreneurial intentions. However, the connection between the synthesized results and the conclusions is not always clearly articulated. The discussion tends to reiterate general ideas from the literature rather than systematically synthesizing evidence from the reviewed studies. The authors should strengthen the conclusions by explicitly linking them to the findings of the reviewed articles, discussing variations across studies, and acknowledging potential limitations of the available evidence.

5. If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified?

Answer: Not applicable

The manuscript is not presented as a living systematic review, nor does it include a plan for continuous updating of the literature search. Therefore, this question is not applicable to the current study.

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.)

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?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Entrepreneurship and innovation studies, entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurship education, university entrepreneurship ecosystems, and systematic literature review methodology.

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

References : Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention and Its Influencing Factors: A Systematic Literature Review. Administrative Sciences .2024;14(5) : 10.3390/admsci14050098 10.3390/admsci14050098 : Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in higher education: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. The International Journal of Management Education .2021;19(1) : 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100458 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100458 : Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics .2021;56(2) : 10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6 809-832 10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6 10.5256/f1000research.195310.r460779 Reviewer response for version 3 Vicentin Damaris Chieregato 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8775-2576 School of Applied Sciences, UNICAMP, Limeira, Brazil

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 28 2 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Vicentin DC 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

The manuscript still presents critical methodological and reporting weaknesses that undermine the credibility and reproducibility expected from a systematic review.

1) PRISMA flow and study counts are inconsistent / not auditable.

The numbers reported across identification, screening, and inclusion remain contradictory (e.g., the text mentions 425 identified, 7 rejected, 318 passed to eligibility, then 386 rejected, 32 selected, and finally 23 reviewed). This sequence is not coherent and prevents verification of the selection process.

2) Search strategy is not reproducible.

The paper does not provide a transparent, replicable search string (Boolean operators, fields searched, limits), nor does it clarify the exact role of Google Scholar relative to Scopus and Web of Science. The rationale for restricting years and the process for de-duplication are also insufficiently documented.

3) Inclusion/exclusion criteria and screening decisions are not operationalized.

Eligibility criteria are described at a high level but not specified in a way that would allow another team to reproduce the selection. It is also unclear why 32 articles were “chosen” but only 23 were reviewed via content analysis.

4) Analytical synthesis remains largely descriptive and internally inconsistent.

The “results and discussion” section mainly lists frequencies and thematic categories without a rigorous synthesis that answers the research questions with clear evidence mapping. Additionally, the classification of “unit of analysis” mixes statistical techniques (SEM, regression) with paper types (conceptual) and includes a large “other/unspecified” category, suggesting incomplete extraction and weak comparability.

5) Conceptual framework claim is not met.

The manuscript claims to offer a conceptual framework, but no explicit framework is clearly developed (i.e., constructs, mechanisms, relationships, boundary conditions). The discussion remains generic and does not sufficiently integrate core ecosystem theory with intention models.

6) Quality control issues remain.

Several language/terminology problems persist (e.g., “PRISSMA”, “contentment coverage”), and at least one reference appears clearly unrelated to the topic (e.g., Chen et al., 2014 on acute promyelocytic leukemia). The keywords also contain an apparent error (“Entrepreneurial inattention”).

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

Partly

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?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial Ecosystems; Innovation Management; Higher Education and Entrepreneurship; Technology and Regional Development; Small Business and Enterprise Studies; Quantitative Methods in Management Research.

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.

 10.5256/f1000research.188809.r444925 Reviewer response for version 2 Sarman Rohmat 1 Referee Universitas Pasundan, Bandung, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 1 2 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Sarman R 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

Summary:

This article attempts to systematize literature on how universities can build entrepreneurship ecosystems to enhance students’ entrepreneurial intentions. The topic is timely and relevant to higher education and innovation management, and the authors’ use of the PRISMA framework is a positive starting point. However, the execution falls short of a robust systematic review. The work currently reads as a descriptive narrative summary rather than a transparent, reproducible systematic review with analytical synthesis.

Key issues to address before the article can be considered scientifically sound:

Conceptual clarity:

Develop an integrative conceptual framework linking ecosystem components (education, policy, finance, culture) with entrepreneurial intention mediators (attitude, self-efficacy, perceived control).

Contrast this with existing models (Isenberg, 2016; Stam & van de Ven, 2021).

Methodological transparency:

Provide exact search terms, database sources, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Resolve numeric inconsistencies and redesign the PRISMA flow diagram correctly.

Include a quality assessment of included studies (risk of bias).

Results presentation:

Replace multiple bar charts with a consolidated summary table listing study author, year, country, sample, method, and key findings.

Distinguish between descriptive results and analytical discussion.

Language and style:

Revise grammar, syntax, and terminology (“inattention” → “intention”).

Standardize references and remove irrelevant biomedical citations.

Contribution to theory:

Move beyond confirmation of known patterns; highlight new insights or propose a refined model for university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Overall recommendation:

�� Major Revision Required

The manuscript has potential value but requires substantial reworking to meet methodological and linguistic standards of F1000Research. Once the conceptual model, PRISMA reporting, and data synthesis are strengthened, the paper could contribute meaningfully to the field of entrepreneurship education.

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.)

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?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Entrepreneurship Management, Higher Education Ecosystem, Strategic Management

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.

 10.5256/f1000research.188809.r444921 Reviewer response for version 2 Millones Liza Dany Yudet 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3672-461X Universidad Peruana Unión, Lima, Peru

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 10 1 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Millones Liza DY 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

Discussing the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the university setting is a very important and current topic that contributes to the economic and social development of current and future generations.

I have reviewed the manuscript and believe it makes an important contribution to the academic environment. However, in order to be indexed, it requires significant revisions, as detailed below:

1. The abstract needs to be rewritten. It is important that it contains a brief context of the study carried out, information on the methodology applied to the study, the number of documents analyzed, and the databases consulted for the systematic review.

2. The introduction is too short and does not contextualize the topic addressed. The role that universities play in entrepreneurship needs to be specified more clearly and substantiated, as well as the mechanisms they have adopted to promote entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial ecosystem model refers to six models. What are they?

3. Regarding the research objectives, there is some confusion in the statement of objectives. The authors refer to “promoting research activities...”. It is likely that the research results will support this promotion; however, consider that the objectives should be associated with what has been demonstrated in the results, which are aligned with the research questions.

4. Regarding the PRISMA diagram, it does not match the text that refers to consultation with the WOS and Scopus databases. The calculations do not match and should be reformulated. The text refers to 23 articles being reviewed; however, the PRISMA diagram establishes that 32 articles were eligible. It also does not refer to quality or risk of bias.

5. The article does not report the search string and equation applied to the study, nor are Boolean operators described.

6. The discussion and conclusions sections must be clearly identified.

7. Grammatical and consistency errors are present in the manuscript, requiring a detailed review of language and grammar.

8. In the bibliography, the citation of Chen, Li, Zhou et al. is not related to the study.

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

No

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

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

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?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

consumer behaviormarketingentrepreneurshipeducation

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.

 10.5256/f1000research.188809.r435060 Reviewer response for version 2 Asmit Brilliant 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2791-4596 Universitas Riau (Ringgold ID: 175475), Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 8 1 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Asmit B 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

Thank you for inviting me to review the revised version of the paper. After reading it thoroughly, I can see that the authors failed to address the reviewers' comments and made no effort to revise the article.

As mentioned in the previous review regarding the language, I still found many misspellings in the paper, especially in the figures. The authors include many Figures, but they do not help readers understand the authors' message. Figure 2, for example, shows the composition of research types, while the narration explains the year of publication. Another example: the words "content", "content", and "Axis title" in Figure 6 are meaningless. Figures 4, 7, and 8 would be more informative in a table format because the diagrams obscure much of the text that the authors explain.

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

Partly

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.)

No

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 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.

 10.5256/f1000research.188809.r437614 Reviewer response for version 2 Vicentin Damaris Chieregato 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8775-2576 School of Applied Sciences, UNICAMP, Limeira, Brazil

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 6 1 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Vicentin DC 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

I had the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Building the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review.” The topic is timely and relevant, particularly regarding the growing interest in understanding how higher education institutions contribute to shaping entrepreneurial intentions. However, despite the importance of the theme, the manuscript presents several substantial issues related to conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, reporting accuracy, and analytical coherence. For these reasons, the manuscript requires extensive revision before it can be considered for indexing.

1) Abstract: The abstract does not adequately reflect the scope or methodological structure of the review. It provides a general description of the topic but fails to communicate essential elements such as the databases used, the criteria for selecting studies, and the main contributions of the work. The introduction would also benefit from a clearer articulation of the research problem. Although the text acknowledges the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems and students’ entrepreneurial intentions, it does not sufficiently outline the specific gap in the literature that justifies conducting a systematic review. As a result, the purpose, scope, and expected contribution of the study remain vague.

2) Theoretical Background: The theoretical background section mentions several entrepreneurship ecosystem models but does so in a fragmented way. Important foundational studies are missing, and the models presented are not critically integrated. Instead of building a coherent conceptual basis, the section lists disconnected references that do not collectively support the aims of the review. This weakens the theoretical anchoring of the manuscript and reduces its capacity to contribute meaningfully to ongoing academic debates.

3) Methodology: The methodological section contains some of the most significant weaknesses. The manuscript claims to rely on Scopus and Web of Science, yet also describes the use of Google Scholar without explaining how results from the different platforms were reconciled. The lack of search strings, Boolean operators, date filters, and language restrictions means that the search process cannot be replicated. Furthermore, the flow of records reported in the text, tables, and PRISMA diagram contains several numerical inconsistencies. The number of studies identified, excluded, and included does not match across sections, raising concerns about the accuracy of the screening process. In addition, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are vaguely described, making it unclear how decisions were made during the review. The data analysis is equally underdeveloped. Although the manuscript mentions descriptive and content analysis, no details about coding procedures, analytical frameworks, or reliability checks are provided. Without methodological transparency, it is difficult to evaluate the validity of the study’s findings.

4) Results: The presentation of the results also requires improvement. Several figures are mislabeled, contain spelling errors, or are inconsistently formatted. In some cases, the captions do not correspond to the content described in the text. Given the relatively small number of studies included, a more concise presentation, perhaps using a summary table, would enhance clarity and reduce redundancy. Additionally, the interpretation of descriptive results does not offer meaningful insights into the research questions and remains limited to superficial observations.

5) Discussion: The discussion section reiterates general points found in existing literature but does not provide a critical synthesis of the evidence. There is no exploration of contradictions across studies, contextual factors, or methodological differences that might explain variation in findings. The paper also lacks reflection on the strength and limitations of the reviewed studies. As a result, the conclusions, although aligned with common themes in the field, are not convincingly supported by the review process described earlier in the manuscript. They read more as general statements about entrepreneurship education and ecosystem support rather than insights derived from a systematic review.

References: The references section contains several formatting inconsistencies and incomplete citations. Some key references cited in the narrative are missing from the list, while others appear incorrectly formatted. This undermines the reliability of the manuscript and should be addressed with a thorough citation audit. Finally, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical, syntactical, and typographical errors that interfere with readability. A comprehensive language edit is necessary before further scientific evaluation.

Overall, the manuscript addresses a significant and relevant topic, but it does not currently meet the standards expected of a systematic review. Extensive revisions are required, particularly in the methodology, numerical consistency, conceptual integration, and presentation of results.

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

Partly

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?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial Ecosystems; Innovation Management; Higher Education and Entrepreneurship; Technology and Regional Development; Small Business and Enterprise Studies; Quantitative Methods in Management Research.

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.

 10.5256/f1000research.188809.r435061 Reviewer response for version 2 Demirdag Ismail 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6241-8547 Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 6 1 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Demirdag I 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

Dear Editor,

I have carefully reviewed the article and compared it with the previous version. However, I have observed that almost none of the comments made by the three reviewers were taken into account. The authors have only attempted to correct grammatical errors, and I can say that errors still remain.

I regret to inform you that this article does not meet the quality and improvement requirements necessary for Indexing.

Sincerely.

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

Yes

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.)

Not applicable

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?

Yes

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 state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

 10.5256/f1000research.188809.r435062 Reviewer response for version 2 Helman Joanna 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-674X Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 6 1 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Helman J 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

This re-review assesses the revised manuscript “Building Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A Systematic Review.” The authors claim substantial improvements. After a careful, line-by-line comparison with the prior version, the revision does not address the core deficiencies previously identified. In several places, numerical contradictions and reporting inconsistencies have actually worsened. The submission still fails to meet basic standards for a systematic review.

Major issues that remain (or deteriorated)

1) PRISMA compliance, reproducibility, and methods - not fixed (and in parts worse)

Database contradiction persists. The methods still present Scopus and Web of Science as core sources while the Identification step states that Google Scholar was used as the search engine. There is no reconciled multi-database strategy, no deduplication method, and no parallel results across sources.

Search strategy remains non-reproducible. The paper still provides no full search strings, no Boolean logic, no field limits, no language filters, and no per-database date limits. Replication is impossible.

Screening/eligibility rules remain vague. The same generic phrases (“source of data, duplication, language”) are used without operational definitions, and there is no dual-review workflow or conflict-resolution procedure.

Arithmetic contradictions have multiplied. Counts within the flow are mutually inconsistent (e.g., totals identified vs. screened vs. eligible vs. included) and do not add up. Elsewhere, summaries still imply a different denominator than the one stated (e.g., percentages based on 30 studies while the text claims 23). This is worse than in the previous version.

PRISMA figure still faulty. The flow diagram remains misspelled (“PRISSMA”) and the counts do not reconcile with the text. There is no protocol registration and no risk-of-bias/quality appraisal-both expected in a systematic review.

Evidence traceability still absent. There is still no in-paper table of included studies (country, sample, measures, outcomes/effect direction). The manuscript again points to an external repository while simultaneously asserting “No data are associated with this article.” The evidence base is not auditable.

 2) Responsiveness to stated RQs and the promised “conceptual framework” - not fixed

The revision does not deliver the promised conceptual framework. What is presented remains a set of descriptive clusters (education, supports, incubators, industry links), with no integrative model, mechanisms, boundary conditions, or testable propositions.

Responses to RQ1–RQ3 remain purely descriptive (roles, methods, instruments). There is no evaluation of measurement validity or comparability across studies, no discussion of robustness, and no study-level exemplars to substantiate claims.

 3) Results presentation and synthesis quality - not fixed

The subsection “Unit of analysis used in the studies reviewed” still misuses the concept, listing statistical techniques (SEM, regression, PLS, logistic regression) rather than true units of analysis, and provides no concrete examples from included studies.

Figures remain out of order (e.g., Figure 8 cited before Figure 2), captions still contain errors (e.g., “Contentment coverage”), and some charts retain placeholders/artifacts (e.g., “Axis Title”). Numbering and text references still do not match.

 4) Findings, discussion, and conclusions - not fixed

The “Results and discussion” section remains a thematic recap, not an analytical discussion suitable for a systematic review. There is no clearly delineated conclusions section that answers each RQ, weights evidence by quality, or justifies the synthesis approach (e.g., why meta-analysis was not feasible; how narrative synthesis was executed).

There is no treatment of heterogeneity, publication bias, or null/contradictory findings. Conclusions remain confirmatory rather than theory-advancing.

 5) References and citation integrity - not fixed

Anomalous attributions remain (e.g., misnamed authors), an irrelevant biomedical citation is still included and even used in the narrative, and there are formatting inconsistencies, duplicated links, and gaps in coverage of foundational ecosystem literature. The reference list requires a complete audit.

 6) Language and formatting - not fixed

The manuscript still contains numerous typos and syntactic errors (including in keywords and abbreviations), inconsistent voice, and figure/caption misspellings. The claimed broad language corrections are not evident.

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

Yes

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

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.)

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?

Partly

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.

 10.5256/f1000research.179598.r409913 Reviewer response for version 1 Demirdag Ismail 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6241-8547 Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 19 9 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Demirdag I 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-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

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.)

Not applicable

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?

Yes

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.

 10.5256/f1000research.179598.r410162 Reviewer response for version 1 Helman Joanna 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-674X Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 18 9 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Helman J 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

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

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

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.)

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?

Partly

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.

 10.5256/f1000research.179598.r409912 Reviewer response for version 1 Asmit Brilliant 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2791-4596 Universitas Riau (Ringgold ID: 175475), Pekanbaru, Riau, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 10 9 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Asmit B 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

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

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.)

No

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 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.