7,649
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Measuring High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems (view source)
Revision as of 11:31, 8 December 2020
, 11:31, 8 December 2020→2nd R&R
#Test the effects of using a framework on various outcomes.
Also for reference, here's are the measures from the paper:*Measure 1 (Startup Ranking). The ranking of an entity, such as a city, is the rank ofthe sum of ranks of three measures:*Measure 2 (Apportioned investment and exit value)*Measure 3 (MOOMI ratio)1. Growth venture investment in dollars *Measure 4 (i.e., the Pipeline)ow of dollars*Measure 5 (Raise Rate)2. New deals *Measure 6 (i.e., the Repeat VC)ow of startups*Measure 7 (ESO Expertise): only a startup's �rst growth VC investmentcounts as a new dealMeasure 1 is exclusive to all others. Measure 2 underpins 3, but 2 & 3stand-alone. Actively-funded startups (iMeasures 4 and 5 go hand in hand, and can be refined by 6.eHowever, 7 exists a proxy for 5 and 6, because they can be hard to calculate.So, the stock reviewers request to "consider possible downsides in using the entire battery of startups): measures" could only mean to consider the downside of the framework as a startup is actively-funded ifwhole, because it has received a round isn't possible to use "the entire battery of growth venture capital within the last �ve years and hasnot exitedmeasures" together.
In my letter to the reviewer, I can explain that this paper is for a special issue and that the editors and I have agreed that this should not be and an empirical paper and that should not contain regressions or other tests. That might tamp down their vitriol somewhat. Whether I deliver back a "major revision" is in the eye of the beholder, and there's no need to draw attention to this demand.
