Jbv Review Process

---
name: jbv-review-process
description: Use when understanding how the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) review process works — field-editor routing under the EIC, 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

- **Field-editor routing**: under EIC Jeffery S. McMullen, manuscripts are managed by **field editors (handling editors)** who own the decision for papers in their domain. Field editors curate their own trusted reviewer pools, so fit with a field editor's 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 field 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. **Field 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's editorial office is embedded in an entrepreneurship center (Kelley/Indiana) with a strong reviewer-development and best-reviewer/best-paper-award culture — a community-stewardship ethos. Expect developmental, substantive reviews.
- Reviewing reciprocity is part of the community; engage constructively.

## Checklist

- [ ] Identified the field 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

## Anti-patterns

- **Treating reviewers as a checklist** while ignoring the field 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 ...
【Field-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)
```