By name: jbv-review-process description: Use when understanding how the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) review process works — Co-EIC / area-editor routing, double-anonymized review by a minimum of two reviewers, desk-reject risk for off-phenomenon work, and reading a JBV decision letter. Explains the process and reads the letter; the response is drafted with jbv-rebuttal.
Review Process (jbv-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to set expectations before or after submitting to JBV
- You received a decision letter and need to interpret it
- You are unsure who decides and what the bar is
- You want to gauge desk-reject risk before submitting
How JBV review works
- Area-editor routing: ScienceDirect lists current Co-Editors-in-Chief Sophie Bacq and Simon Parker and an editorial-board structure with area editors by domain. Fit with the relevant area shapes both routing and outcome — make your home conversation obvious so the paper reaches a sympathetic, expert editor.
- Double-anonymized review: suitable manuscripts are sent to a minimum of two reviewers; neither side sees identities. Off-fit or insufficiently theorized papers may be desk-rejected by the editor before review — common at this FT50 flagship.
- The bar: reviewers and the handling editor judge whether the paper advances theory about the entrepreneurial phenomenon, not just whether the method is clean. "Entrepreneurship is only the setting" is a frequent reject rationale.
Likely decision outcomes
- Desk reject: off-topic, entrepreneurship incidental, or insufficiently theorized; sometimes a fit/scope mismatch.
- Reject after review: a fatal identification/selection/survivorship problem, or a contribution judged incremental.
- Major revision (R&R): the phenomenon and contribution are promising but theory, identification, or framing need substantial work — the normal path to acceptance.
- Minor revision: targeted fixes; less common on a first decision.
Reading the decision letter
- Handling editor's letter first — it states the decision and the priority concerns; these are the make-or-break issues.
- Sort reviewer points into: theory/contribution, identification/selection/survivorship, framing/positioning, and presentation.
- Find the integrative concern — the cross-cutting worry (often "is the entrepreneurship contribution real?") that, if solved, resolves several points.
- Gauge invitation strength — does the editor signal genuine interest, or a courtesy R&R? Calibrate effort accordingly.
Norms & culture
- JBV has a strong reviewer-development and entrepreneurship-community ethos. Expect developmental, substantive reviews.
- Reviewing reciprocity is part of the community; engage constructively.
Checklist
- Identified the handling editor's priority concerns
- Reviewer points sorted (theory / identification / framing / presentation)
- Integrative concern named
- Invitation strength gauged (genuine R&R vs. courtesy)
- Desk-reject risks (off-phenomenon, thin theory) checked pre-submission
Desk-reject pattern map (read before submitting)
The editor screens before review; these are the recurring grounds for a desk-reject at an entrepreneurship flagship, with the pre-emptive fix.
| Desk-reject trigger | Pre-emptive fix before upload |
|---|---|
| Entrepreneurship is the setting, not the contribution. | Make the venture/opportunity/founder mechanism the headline of abstract and intro. |
| Phenomenon-rich but theory-thin. | State the assumption challenged or new process theory; a vivid case is not yet a contribution. |
| Out-of-scope for any area editor's domain. | Position the home conversation in the first two pages so routing is clean. |
| Incremental confirmation in a new startup sample. | Reframe around what is overturned, not "first to test X on founders." |
Worked micro-example: reading a JBV letter (illustrative)
A handling editor returns a major revision on a crowdfunding-signaling paper. Triage:
- Handling-editor letter: one make-or-break concern — "I am not convinced the signaling mechanism is entrepreneurial rather than generic information economics." That is the integrative concern; solving it unlocks several points.
- Reviewer 1 (theory): wants the liability-of-newness logic made central → maps to the integrative concern.
- Reviewer 2 (identification): backers self-select into campaigns → selection threat, route to
jbv-data-analysis. - Reviewer 3 (presentation): exhibits unreadable → lowest priority, cosmetic.
- Invitation strength: "I would welcome a revision," plus specific theoretical guidance → a genuine R&R, so full effort is warranted.
Calibration anchors (hedged)
- Treat the handling editor's letter as the binding contract: the editor's stated priorities decide the outcome. Answer those first and fully.
- Multi-round R&R is the realistic path to acceptance; a first-round accept is rare.
- Numbers (timelines, acceptance rates, masthead) drift. The minimum-two-reviewer rule and area-editor structure should be confirmed against the current masthead and author guidelines.
Anti-patterns
- Treating reviewers as a checklist while ignoring the handling editor's priorities.
- Underestimating desk-reject risk for entrepreneurship-as-setting papers.
- Assuming first-round acceptance — multi-round R&R is the norm.
Output format
【Decision】desk-reject | reject | major R&R | minor ...
【Handling-editor priorities】top concerns ...
【Integrative concern】the cross-cutting issue ...
【Point map】theory / identification / framing / presentation ...
【Invitation strength】genuine | courtesy ...
【Next step】jbv-rebuttal (if R&R)