---
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

1. **Handling editor's letter first** — it states the decision and the *priority* concerns; these are the make-or-break issues.
2. **Sort reviewer points** into: theory/contribution, identification/selection/survivorship, framing/positioning, and presentation.
3. **Find the integrative concern** — the cross-cutting worry (often "is the entrepreneurship contribution real?") that, if solved, resolves several points.
4. **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)
```