PONE-D-24-16851The Effect of Social Capital on the Association Between Mental Health and Well-Being and Business Performance among Female Chinese Entrepreneurs: A Moderated Mediation ModelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

María José Ibáñez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (a) whether consent was informed and (b) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:  The Effect of Social Capital on the Association Between Mental Health and Well-Being and Business Performance among Female Chinese Entrepreneurs: A Moderated Mediation Model

Reviewed by: Riyaz Abro

Observation Points (If agreed upon)

a) Keywords are missing.

b) The introduction is not as extensively written as it should have been and it should be brimmed with more citations and history.

c) Variables should have been discussed deeply i.e. Female Entrepreneurial Motivation Pull, Business Performance in Women-owned Businesses, Self-Determination Theory, Mental Health and Well-Being (MWB), Social Capital.

Methodology:

a. In Table 5 some variables are insignificant as per p-values, however, all hypotheses have been shown supported under the regression analysis heading.

Overall Comments:

The paper is outclassed; however, the methodology has not been given whether it was cross-sectional, longitudinal, qualitative, or quantitative research type. When was the research work completed? As per the model “bridging and bonding” are the moderators and “wellbeing” is a mediator and the model has serial moderation and discussion. In the second model, the arrow reflects wrong, however when they moderate the variables then it should also moderate the IV as well, however, they indicate only “Mediation Effects”. Hypothesis 3 is wrong; it should have been generated between IV and IV.

Reviewer #2:  I recommend the inclusion of the following improvements inthe manuscript:

- Provide a last paragraph in the introduction to describe thestructure of the manuscript;

-Lack of Theoretical foundation, please add this section, Whisthery will suuport your conceptual model?

-The literature review should be more elaborated in order tolink the main issues mentioned.

- Which kinds of procedures were adopted to reach this greatmark, especially data collection?

-Please show your measurement model and structrual model.

- Provide implications as well as contributions of this manuscript for the reader.It is necessary to emphasize andwrite more clearly the managerial contributions. Also,essential to add theoretical implications in this regard.

- Add a research instrument with appropriate sources(questionnaires) before the details reference section.

- Minor issues relate to the structure and readability of thestudy

Reviewer #3:  Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled ‘Effect of Social Capital on the Association Between Mental Health and Well-Being and Business Performance among Female Chinese Entrepreneurs: A Moderated Mediation Model’ submitted to PLOS ONE. Upon careful examination of the manuscript, it is evident that several significant issues merit attention. While acknowledging the strengths of the statistical work, it is imperative to address concerns related to the language of the manuscript, the use of adequate references (more than one to support ideas), and other concerns mentioned in the review to elevate the scholarly impact and coherence of the article. I am hopeful that with appropriate revisions, the manuscript could have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the academic discourse.

Title: the title is too long and can be more concise

Abstract

The abstract does not include all key aspects such as significance, contribution, and limitations of the study.

Introduction

Several statements are not supported with references such as the first sentence.

The language quality of the manuscript needs to be improved. You may need to seek assistance from a professional editing service to improve clarity, readability, and overall flow. An example of a grammatical error (reference) is on page 9 “Although previous studies have explored the relationship between different types of entrepreneurial motivation and different types of business performance [6]. However, it did not delve deeper into the specific mechanisms by which entrepreneurial motivation pull affects business performance.”

The content and organization of the introduction do not align with scholarly publications. For example, the gap in existing literature that your study aims to address is not clearly indicated or developed. As an example, the article should have emphasized the lack of comprehensive research regarding the role of social capital in shaping the relationship between mental health, well-being, and business performance among female Chinese entrepreneurs. This idea could be developed and supported with adequate references. Further and more critical information is missing.

Literature Review

Concepts in the review are situated in ‘developing countries’ and are not oriented to support or describe the specific work context of Chinese female entrepreneurs. There is no attention to developing background information that is specific to the study. For example, the author mentions that “Research has shown that resource restrictions, business model pivots, family embeddedness, and demographic variables all have a major influence on the performance of women-owned enterprises”. How do these variables relate to the Chinese context, what evidence and research supports such claims in the context from which data is drawn in your study, and how does a reader foreign to your context understand the socio-economic implications of these variables? These are examples of some questions concerning the background of the study that may need further attention.

Unfortunately, the literature review consists of relevant but disconnected theoretical concepts and ideas and does not synthesize existing knowledge to establish the context within which your study is situated. This contextualization is essential for readers to understand the significance of your research and its contribution to the field. It is not building an argument towards a research gap nor indicating the position of your research within the broader scholarly conversation and hence does not demonstrate your understanding of the relevant literature. One of the primary functions of a literature review is to identify gaps, contradictions, or limitations in the existing literature. By critically analyzing previous research, you can pinpoint areas where existing findings are inconsistent or inconclusive and hence your investigation is needed to fill the gap.

The Self-Determination Theory is indicated as “an important theoretical foundation for entrepreneurial studies”; however, there is no explanation of how it is used as the theoretical framework for your study. For example, will it be used to guide the formulation of hypotheses that specify the expected relationships between variables based on theoretical principles? By grounding your hypotheses in established theory, you provide a theoretical rationale for your research questions and predictions. Alternatively, SD theory informs the choice of statistical techniques and methods for data analysis. By selecting appropriate analytical methods that are consistent with the theoretical framework, you ensure that your findings are interpreted in light of theoretical expectations and contribute to theoretical advancement. In other words, you need to ensure that your quantitative study is theoretically grounded and that SD theory guides all aspects of the research process from conceptualization to interpretation of findings. Grounding your study in established theory enhances the generalizability and external validity of your findings. By building on a strong theoretical framework, you provide a basis for comparing your results with previous research and extending conclusions to broader populations or contexts.

On page 21, you mention that social capital plays a moderating role and “this mechanism is supported by several studies that have explored it from various perspectives.” without supporting this statement with adequate references. The support of the research hypotheses is not well organized to convey an argument that leads to the need to investigate the hypothesis. Instead, this section consists of relevant but disconnected ideas.

Suggesting a model that is not based on the literature or the findings of the study is not appropriate.

Methodology

While your method claims to use random sampling, the reliance on an online survey platform may introduce sampling bias. Not all individuals have equal access to or use of online platforms, which could result in underrepresentation or exclusion of certain segments of the population, such as those with limited internet access or technology literacy. This can undermine the representativeness of the sample and limit the generalizability of the findings. Respondents who choose to participate in online surveys may differ systematically from those who do not, leading to self-selection bias. For example, only females who have issues or strong opinions on the subject may be more likely to respond, skewing the sample towards certain characteristics or attitudes. This can compromise the external validity of the findings. The quality and reliability of responses collected through an online survey platform may vary. Filtering respondents based on IP addresses in mainland China may limit the diversity of the sample and overlook Chinese female entrepreneurs residing outside of China who with cross-border business interests, potentially narrowing the scope of the study and overlooking valuable perspectives. Otherwise, it is important to justify the limitations of the study and indicate them upfront. The description of the data collection method should provide sufficient detail about the measures taken to control for potential biases or ensure the quality of the data collected. Without adequate control measures, there is a heightened risk of bias, errors, or inconsistencies in the data, compromising the reliability and validity of the study results.

You mention that “After careful review and elimination of unreasonable answers” without explaining what is considered to be ‘unreasonable’ or detailing your exclusion criteria.

On page 28, you mention that ‘we controlled for participants’ education level and entrepreneurial experience in the following data analysis’ without explaining how this is done.

Descriptive statistics

Although this section has better empirical content than previous ones, it draws attention to a lack of support for all six hypotheses in the literature.

Findings and Discussion

Overall, the discussion section does not build adequate evidence drawn from the findings in connection with the literature. I do not see a convincing argument or organization per hypothesis.

The statement - “entrepreneurial motivation positively affects MWB. Consequently, enhanced MWB significantly boosts business performance. MWB fully mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial motivation pull and business performance” - implies causal relationships between entrepreneurial motivation, mental well-being (MWB), social capital, and business performance. However, without longitudinal or experimental data, it's challenging to establish causality definitively. The relationships described may be bidirectional or influenced by other factors not accounted for in the analysis; however, this is not indicated or justified.

On page 38, you emphasize the need for ‘addressing entrepreneurial mental health as a strategy” but do not explain how or support this with examples and references.

Conclusion

The conclusion is too short and does not cover the requirements of an academic article.

There is no mention of the theoretical contribution and practical implications.

Finally, attending to the above concerns (I have not covered all issues due to time restrictions) would help in refining the manuscript and strengthening its contribution to the academic discourse.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Riyaz Abro

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: The Effect of.pdf

PONE-D-24-16851R1The Effect of Social Capital on the Association Between Mental Health and Well-Being and Business Performance among Female Chinese Entrepreneurs: A Moderated Mediation Model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers have provided comprehensive feedback that highlights several significant areas requiring revision to enhance the quality and scholarly impact of your manuscript. For example,

1. Title and Abstract: The title needs to be more concise. Additionally, the abstract should be expanded to include the study's significance, contribution, and limitations, which are currently missing.

2. Introduction and Literature Review: The introduction lacks sufficient references to support its statements and needs to clearly identify the research gap your study addresses. The literature review is criticized for not adequately situating the study within the specific context of Chinese female entrepreneurs. It should be more coherent, linking concepts to the study’s objectives and developing a stronger argument towards the research gap. Additionally, the theoretical foundation, particularly the application of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), needs to be clarified and integrated into the study's design, hypothesis formulation, and data analysis.

3. Methodology: The methodology section needs to address potential biases introduced by the use of an online survey platform and provide more detail on the data collection process, including criteria for excluding responses and controlling variables like education level and entrepreneurial experience. The study's design, particularly the sampling method and its implications for the representativeness of the results, should be justified.

4. Results and Discussion: The discussion section requires a more thorough integration of the findings with existing literature and a clearer organization around the study's hypotheses. The current interpretation of the results implies causality without adequate justification, and this needs to be addressed by either adjusting the claims or providing a stronger methodological basis for causal inference.

5. Conclusion: The conclusion is too brief and should be expanded to include a discussion of the study's theoretical contributions, practical implications, and the significance of the findings.

6. Overall Structure and Clarity: The manuscript requires improvements in language quality, organization, and the inclusion of key elements such as a more detailed introduction, theoretical foundation, and a clearer presentation of the research model. Minor revisions related to readability, structure, and the inclusion of supplementary materials like the research instrument are also necessary.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 18 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

María José Ibáñez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Pull Motivation and Well-Being as Drivers of Entrepreneurial Success: The Moderating Role of Bridging Social Capital

PONE-D-24-16851R2

Dear Dr. Li,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, PhD. Economics

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: