7,612
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
==Current Version==*The final version was accepted to Research Policy on May 17th, 2021. *The 50-day share link is: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1d8SaB5ASINVf *The title was changed to "A Framework for Assessing Municipal High-Growth High-Tech Entrepreneurship Policy"
The current version<pdf>File:Egan_(2021)_-_A_Framework_for_Assessing_Municipal_High-Growth_High-Tech_Entrepreneurship_Policy. which is currently a 2nd R&R at Research Policy is:pdf</pdf>
<pdf>FileThe BibTeX reference is (pending update with volume and number):MeasuringHGHTEntrepreneurshipEcosystemsV3-3.pdf</pdf>
This The original Measuring HGHT Entrepreneurship Ecosystems paper was broken into two:*Measuring HGHT :'''A Framework for Assessing Municipal High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: This Policy''' now contains the definitions, measures, and exampleexamples. It is an informalinductive, bycase-example theory study paper.
Note that there There were three reviewers for the 2nd R&R but Reviewer 2 never returned any comments.Reviewer 1 accepted the paper. Reviewer 3 asked for a revision. The editor said: :"We would be glad to reconsider a resubmitted paper, revised in the light of the referees' comments.:If you decide to revise the paper, it would be very useful if you could also include an author's response to the referees, listing what changes you have (or have not) made and where.:If you choose to revise your paper, could you please ensure that it is resubmitted on or before Feb 06, 2021. (If there is too long a gap, referees may have forgotten what they said previously or be unwilling to review the revised paper, causing further delays.)"
At He also reminded me that the median review is a reject, and that this point in my career, Ia `good'm unique placed to give review based on the response distribution of reviews. The reviewer does say that every academic really wants to give to the 'self-aggrandizing idiot' that somehow always ends up controlling paper is useful and helpful::"The defining of key terms is a useful contribution of this paper, as are the fate identification of our hard workpotentially useful metrics of HGHT entrepreneurship. Furthermore, namely:the examples are often helpful in highlighting their various applications."
HoweverI put these as points 1, it does seem that '''some''' of reviewer 2, and 3's comments would lead to improvements in , and added material from the paper. These are:#Being clearer that standardized measures aren't a panacea#A better discussion rest of gaming and incentives#Better framing in his review (see below) to create the front end list of why these measures make sense (likely using the bullet-points from RFP for the special issue) that I would need to 'll address Reviewer 3's comments point-by-point, so here they are:#Consider possible downsides of each the individual metricmetrics.#Consider possible downsides in using the entire battery of measures.
In my letter to Also for reference, here are the measures in the reviewer, I can explain that this paper is for a special issue and that latest version of the editors and I have agreed that this should not be and an empirical paper :*Measure 1 (Apportioned investment and exit value)*Measure 2 (MOOMI ratio)*Measure 3 (Pipeline)*Measure 4 (Raise Rate)*Measure 5 (Cost per raise)*Measure 6 (Repeat VC)*Measure 7 (ESO Expertise) The old Startup Ranking measure has been dropped. Also, there are two definitions that should not contain regressions or other testsare close to being measures:*Definition 5 (Local VC)*Definition 8 (Expert) This version also adds Measure 5 (Cost per raise) as a numbered measure. That might tamp down their vitriol somewhat Measures 1 and 2 provide ways to calculate proxies for return quartiles. Whether I deliver back a "major revision" is in Measures 3, 4 and 5 are the eye central measures of the beholder, framework. Measures 6 and there's no need 7 are alternative ways to draw attention to this demandassess the performance of pipeline components (measure 7 is possible without VC investment data).
Measuring High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems (view source)
Revision as of 16:46, 8 June 2021
, 16:46, 8 June 2021→Data and Analysis
|Has title=Measuring High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems
|Has author=Ed Egan,
|Has paper status=R and RPublished
}}
==Final Version==
@article{EGAN2021104292, title ={A framework for assessing municipal high-growth high-technology entrepreneurship policy}, journal =Files{Research Policy}, pages ={104292}, year ={2021}, issn = {0048-7333}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104292}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321000937}, author = {Edward J. Egan}, keywords = {Entrepreneurship, Ecosystem, Measurement, High-growth high-technology, Venture capital, Ecosystem support organization, Pipeline, Raise rate, Policy cartel}, abstract = {This paper advances a framework for making rudimentary need, impact, and cost–benefit assessments of municipal high-growth high-tech entrepreneurship policy. The framework views ecosystem support organizations like accelerators, incubators, and hubs as components in a city’s venture pipeline. A component’s pipeline size, raise rate, and cost per raise measure its performance. In total, the framework consists of eight objective and reproducible measures based on quantities and qualities of venture capital investment and 16 definitions of related terms-of-the-art. These measures and definitions are illustrated in 26 real-world policy examples, which assess initiatives in Houston and St. Louis over the last 20 years. The examples reveal an enormous variation in welfare effects, and some policies appear welfare destroying. Many non-profit organizations claim success (and win awards and acclaim) using non-standard measures despite performing at less than half benchmark levels. Policy cartels, which control startup policy in many U.S. cities, also engage in non-market actions to protect their rents.} }
The files are final file series was v4-6-2 in:
E:\projects\MeasuringHGHTEcosystems
/bulk/vcdb4
Egan (2021) - A Framework for Assessing Municipal High-Growth High-Tech Entrepreneurship Policy.pdf
Production files (sent to ResPol):
*MeasuringHGHTEntrepreneurshipEcosystemsV4-6-2.tex
*MeasuringHGHTEntrepreneurshipEcosystemsV4-6-2-TitlePage.tex
*References.bib
*HoustonPipelineV4.png
*HoustonVCRaiseRateWithBenchmarkV4.png
*econ.bst
==Notice==
*[[Determinants of Future Investment in U.S. Startup Cities]]: The empirical analysis of ESOs is now in this paper!
==2nd R&R==
Summarizing reviewer 1's comment comments (i.e., reading between the lines):
*The writing is currently pretty good: '''it is well done'''... '''the paper is polished'''... '''very nicely done'''.
*It The paper works as a whole. The reviewer didn't want anything cut: '''It is a collection of case studies and definitions''', and '''I don't have ... major comments'''.
It's Reviewer 3's comments are more problematicthat I need to address. As is often Jim kindly reminded me to ascribe only normative motivations to the case, I wonder whether the reviewer actually read the paper:*The paper advances seven new measures, not 15 as the reviewer claims*Policy cartels are introduced in section 4.1 Reviewer (out of 5rather than positive theories), and aren. He also said to '''t follow the main focus review''' and respond to each point with one of the paper per sethree sentiments:*I never use the entire battery of measures -- different measures are applicable in different contexts Disagree*A key Good point but beyond the scope of the paper is to stop organizations from self-selecting into measures that they do well on*All bar two sentences of the 'substantive material' in the review (i.e., from "FirstGood point and I address it like this..." to the end) don't mention anything to do with the paper!
The reviewer listed the following three major flaws::"Dear Reviewer. After carefully considering your commentsIn my view, I would like the offer major flaws in the following response: I find your suggestions for my beautiful paper to puerile/irrelevant/narcissistic/useless/stupid/all-study are not (1) considering possible downsides of-each individual metric, (2) considering possible downsides in using the-above entire battery of measures, and (delete as appropriate3), so I'm going testing alternatives to ignore them and, by extension, you. Up yoursthis measurement approach."
#Test alternatives to this measurement approach
#Discuss when the welfare implications of putting more information in the hands of policymakers, including:##It is not necessarily true that "standardized measurement" improves outcomes, when it doessuch as policy, overall. All frameworks are not equal and perhaps howthat any conceived framework is not necessarily better than nothing.#Discuss #Measurements are rarely if ever neutral (vis-à-vis behavior). There can be systematic bias due to gaming metrics incentivized by rewards attached to the measurement (old and new). Specifically, note that this behavioral change might have nothing to do with #Consider the relationship between the underlying conceptual phenomenon and how it is operationalized:##Discuss alternative calculations of interesta measure when applicable (i. (Think "Rewarding A While Hoping For B", etce., multitask, etcfor the ranking measure).)#Justify the choices in the reduction of the #Discuss that measurement space Measurement is often reductive: What is left out? Is it important? .##Discuss the difference between the conceptual phenomenon and how it is operationalizedsystematic bias.
#Test the effects of using a framework on various outcomes.
===RP Constraints===
This paper came from a presentation that I made to the Kauffman UMM Grant Cohort. I originally attempted to add empirics but this approach necessarily reduced the coverage of material: Although the framework is simple and used in practice, it is also on the frontier of research, so there aren't any published academic papers with the empirics. So I opted to break the original submission in two - breaking the empirics back out and leaving this as the best attempt I could make at a narrative-based exploration of the whole framework. It is, as a consequence, a very unusual paper. But most people I showed it to were enthusiastic. It is also reference-bait. Outside the review process, some readers were both amused and worried about its snarky tone, which I'm still trying to address.
This paper had a storied submission resubmission process:
*The deadline for resubmission was June 15th, 2020. Before this deadline, I emailed the editors and offered them either this version of the paper, which contains no empirics, or an empirical paper without examples or definitions. I received no response.
*This version The first revision of the paper was submitted as an R&R to a Special Issue of Research Policy on June 10th, 2020, with manuscript number RESPOL-D-19-01438R1.
*On September 15th, I sent an email to the editors requesting information but received no response.
*I wrote to the editors again on October 27th, this time using the Elvesier form, to request another update. The last status reported by Elvesier (https://ees.elsevier.com/respol/default.asp) was 'Required Reviews Complete' on October 9th, 2020.
*On October 28th, I received an email saying: "Hello Ed. I hope to get back to you shortly. I have two good reviews and I’m waiting on a third. This most definitely will be another R&R. More soon"
*On November 8th, I got an official email about the paper that said: "We have now received the referees' reports on your paper, copies of which I enclose below for your information. As you will see, the referees make various comments and suggestions for improvement. I have given up on the third reviewer and want to return the paper to you." However, this email only contained one review. I requested clarification and noted that Reviewer 3 had asked for empirics.
*On November 11th , I got an email that said: "Hello Ed, This is strange. The comments were in the comments to the editor. Here they are and they are not worth that much. This special issue has a specific purpose. '''You do not need to run regressions!'''" (Note that the comments are below as Reviewer 1. They indicate that the reviewer 1 accepted the paper.)*On February 6th, 2021, I submitted the second revision of the paper.
==Research Policy Special Issue==
==Data and Analysis==
The paper uses [[vcdb4VCDB20]] and [[US Startup City Ranking]], as well as a wealth of old McNair material. Sources include (copied to the project folder unless otherwise noted):
*[[Hubs]]: Hubs Data v2_'16.xlsx
*[[Federal Grant Data]], including NIH, NSF and other grant data, especially SBIR/STTR. Possibly also contract data.
