7,612
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Measuring High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems (view source)
Revision as of 19:45, 7 December 2020
, 19:45, 7 December 2020→2nd R&R
#Discuss when "standardized measurement" improves outcomes, when it does, and perhaps how.
#Discuss 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 the underlying phenomenon of interest. (Think "Rewarding A While Hoping For B", etc., multitask, etc.)
#Justify the choices in the reduction of the measurement space . Measurement is often reductive: What is left out? Is it important? Discuss the difference between the conceptual phenomenon and how it is operationalized.
#Test the effects of using a framework on various outcomes.
Also for reference, here's the measures from the paper:
Measure 1 (Startup Ranking). The ranking of an entity, such as a city, is the rank of
the sum of ranks of three measures:
1. Growth venture investment in dollars (i.e., the
ow of dollars)
2. New deals (i.e., the
ow of startups): only a startup's �rst growth VC investment
counts as a new deal
3. Actively-funded startups (i.e., the stock of startups): a startup is actively-funded if
it has received a round of growth venture capital within the last �ve years and has
not exited.
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.
