gabrielmoreira Review Process (etp-review-process)
When to trigger
- You just submitted and want to know what to expect and when
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read the signal (reject / major R&R / minor)
- You are deciding whether an R&R is winnable and how much to invest
- You want to understand ETP's developmental review culture before you respond
- You are weighing a resubmission to ETP vs. a reroute to JBV/SEJ/AMJ
How ETP review actually runs
ETP uses double-anonymized peer review through ScholarOne, typically with a handling/associate editor and two to three reviewers. Like its top management/entrepreneurship peers, ETP runs a developmental review model: reviewers and editors aim to help a promising paper become publishable across rounds, so a major R&R is the realistic "good" first outcome for a strong submission — outright first-round acceptance is rare. Expect substantive, theory-heavy reviews and an editor letter that prioritizes among reviewer concerns.
Calibrate volatile specifics (current turnaround times, acceptance rate, editor) on the SAGE journal page and your ScholarOne dashboard (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Reading the decision letter
| Decision | What it usually means | Your move |
|---|---|---|
| Desk reject | Fit/contribution/anonymization problem before review | Reroute or re-engineer the contribution (etp-topic-selection / etp-contribution-framing) |
| Reject after review | Fixable-in-principle but too far this round | Harvest the reviews; major rebuild before any resubmission |
| Major R&R | The realistic strong outcome — winnable with serious work | Plan a full revision; this is etp-rebuttal territory |
| Minor R&R | Close; targeted fixes | Address precisely; do not reopen settled issues |
| Conditional accept | Almost there | Execute the editor's conditions exactly |
The editor's letter is the master document: it tells you which reviewer concerns are binding. When reviewers conflict, the editor usually signals whose view governs — follow that signal rather than trying to satisfy everyone equally.
Why ETP papers get desk-rejected
- Fit: a strategy/finance/general-management paper with entrepreneurship as mere setting
- Thin theory: a mechanism that "could be about any firm"
- Missing practice mandate: no credible implications-for-practice contribution
- Anonymization failure: author identity leaks, mishandled under double-anonymized review
- Length/format: over the page limit or non-APA, signaling carelessness
Choosing whether to fight for the R&R
An ETP major R&R is worth heavy investment when the editor signals the contribution is valued and the binding concerns are addressable with available data/redesign. It is not worth it when a core reviewer rejects the premise (the mechanism isn't entrepreneurial, the design can't support the claim) and no feasible revision changes that — there, a reroute or rebuild beats a doomed resubmission. The developmental culture means editors expect a serious, responsive revision; a thin response burns the goodwill an R&R represents.
Checklist
- You have identified the decision type and the editor's binding priorities
- You can name the 2–3 concerns that must be resolved to win the R&R
- You have judged whether the contribution premise survived (if not, reroute)
- You know which reviewer the editor sided with on any conflict
- The revision plan covers theory, evidence, and the practice contribution
- Timeline and feasibility (new data? new analysis?) are realistic
Anti-patterns
- Treating a major R&R as a near-acceptance and revising lightly
- Satisfying all reviewers equally while ignoring the editor's prioritization
- Reopening settled points in a minor R&R
- Fighting an unwinnable R&R when the premise itself was rejected
- Ignoring the practice mandate in the revision because the theory got most reviewer ink
Worked vignette (illustrative)
An author receives a major R&R. The editor's letter says the contribution is "potentially important" but lists two binding concerns: R1 doubts the mechanism is distinctively entrepreneurial, and R2 calls the practice section thin; a third reviewer raises minor measurement points.
Reading the signal: "potentially important" plus a major R&R in ETP's developmental culture means this is a winnable, worth-investing revision, not a near-acceptance — the author should plan a substantial rebuild, not a light pass.
The editor's prioritization is explicit (R1 and R2 are binding; R3 is secondary), so the revision plan leads with re-securing the entrepreneurial mechanism and rewriting the practice section as a real contribution, then mops up R3's measurement points.
If, instead, R1 had rejected the premise outright with the editor concurring ("this is not an entrepreneurship contribution"), no feasible revision would save it and a reroute to JBV or a rebuild would beat a doomed resubmission.
The author hands the prioritized plan to etp-rebuttal.
Output format
【Journal】Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
【Decision type】desk reject / reject / major R&R / minor R&R / conditional
【Editor's binding priorities】top 2-3 concerns the letter foregrounds
【Reviewer conflict】whose view the editor signals governs
【Premise survives?】is the entrepreneurial contribution still alive? Y/N
【Winnability】invest / reroute / rebuild + why
【Revision scope】theory / evidence / practice section
【Next skill】etp-rebuttal