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 lead to 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.
SoI put these as points 1, 2, and 3, I and added material from the rest of his review (see below) to create the following list of the bullet-points that I'll address:
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!
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.)"
Summarizing reviewer 1's comments (i.e., reading between the lines):
*Good point and I address it like this...
He also reminded me that the median review is a reject, and that this a `good' review based on the distribution of reviews. The reviewer does saythat the paper is useful and helpful:
:"The defining of key terms is a useful contribution of this paper, as are the identification of potentially useful metrics of HGHT entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the examples are often helpful in highlighting their various applications."
:"In my view, the major flaws in the study are not (1) considering possible downsides of each individual metric, (2) considering possible downsides in using the entire battery of measures, and (3) testing alternatives to this measurement approach."
#Consider possible downsides of the individual metrics.
#Consider possible downsides in using the entire battery of measures.
*Measure 3 (Pipeline)
*Measure 4 (Raise Rate)
*Measure 5 (Cost per raise)*Measure 6 (Repeat VC)*Measure 6 7 (ESO Expertise)
The old Startup Ranking measure has been dropped. Also, there are two definitions that are close to being measures:
*Definition 8 (Expert)
This version also adds Measure 5 (Cost per raise) as a numbered measure. Measures 1 and 2 provide ways to calculate proxies for return quartiles. Measures 3 , 4 and 4 5 are the central measures of the framework. Measures 5 6 and 6 7 are alternative ways to assess the performance of pipeline components (measure 6 7 is possible without VC investment data).
===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.
