Etp Tables Figures

Tables & Figures (etp-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• Your results tables are dense walls of coefficients a reviewer cannot read
• The paper has no figure that shows the theoretical model / mechanism
• A qualitative paper lacks a data-structure figure (1st-order → 2nd-order → dimensions)
• Tables use significance asterisks as the headline and omit effect sizes / CIs
• Exhibits are not APA-formatted or appear at the end rather than near their callout

What ETP exhibits must do

At ETP, exhibits carry two loads: the empirical (do the numbers support the claim?) and the theoretical (can a reader see the mechanism?). The journal's strong-theory identity means a conceptual/mechanism figure is expected in most papers — a diagram of the hypothesized chain (antecedents → entrepreneurial mechanism → outcomes, with moderators/mediators) — and for inductive work a Gioia data structure is essentially mandatory. Format to APA: descriptive titles, defined abbreviations, notes that make the table self-contained.

The exhibit suite by paper type

Make results tables earn their space

• Lead with magnitude, not stars. Report coefficients with standard errors and, where possible, confidence intervals; give effect sizes (hazard ratios, marginal effects, standardized betas). Significance asterisks may appear by APA convention, but they cannot be the story.
• One question per table. A reader should know what claim each table tests from its title.
• Show the moderation, don't just tabulate it. An interaction is best read as a simple-slopes plot; a table of products rarely communicates the contingency.
• Correlation tables: include means, SDs, and reliabilities on the diagonal for self-report constructs.

The mechanism figure is a contribution, not decoration

A clean theoretical model figure does triple duty: it states the hypotheses visually, signals the entrepreneurial mechanism (so a reviewer cannot mistake it for a generic-org model), and gives the reader a map for the results. Label the constructs with your entrepreneurial names (e.g., "affordable-loss reasoning," "socioemotional wealth"), not generic placeholders, and make moderators/mediators visually distinct.

Qualitative exhibits

The Gioia data structure is the trust contract for inductive ETP work: it shows the inductive chain from informant terms to theoretical dimensions. Pair it with a process-model figure (the dynamic "movie" of the static data structure) and a quotation table that ties evidence to dimensions and informants. Thin or absent data structures are a fast credibility loss.

Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)

Generate exhibits from the fitted result, not by retyping numbers (the usual source of body-vs-appendix drift). Full map: execution-with-mcp. ETP is entrepreneurship, where selection and survival bias are pervasive — foreground identification and selection corrections.

• Tables: etable (multi-model columns) or did_summary_to_latex straight from the result_id.
• Figures: plot_from_result / enhanced_event_study_plot / event_study_table — axis units and the SE/clustering note baked in.
• Every note names the estimator + clustering and states the effect size in interpretable units.

See a full fitted-result → exhibit chain in the JF execution walkthrough.

Checklist

• A theoretical/mechanism figure is present and labeled with entrepreneurial constructs
• Inductive papers include a Gioia data structure and a process model
• Results tables lead with magnitude (effect sizes, CIs), not asterisks alone
• Interactions/moderations shown as plots, not just product terms
• Correlation table reports means, SDs, and reliabilities
• Every exhibit is self-contained (APA title + notes) and called out near its placement
• No exhibit carries a claim the main text fails to make

Anti-patterns

• No mechanism figure in a theory-forward paper
• Asterisk-as-headline tables with no effect sizes or CIs
• Generic-construct labels that let a reviewer recast the model as non-entrepreneurial
• Interaction-as-table with no simple-slopes plot
• Decorative figures that repeat the text without adding interpretive value
• Thin/absent Gioia structure in an inductive submission

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A quantitative effectuation paper submits four dense regression tables, asterisks marking significance, and no figure. An ETP-ready exhibit suite reorganizes this. Add a theoretical model figure first: boxes labeled with the entrepreneurial constructs (affordable-loss reasoning → venture survival), market uncertainty drawn as a moderator on the path — so a reviewer immediately sees the mechanism is effectual, not generic risk-taking. Collapse the four tables into one descriptives-plus-correlations table (means, SDs, reliabilities on the diagonal) and one main results table that leads with hazard ratios and confidence intervals, with asterisks demoted to a footnote per APA. Replace the buried interaction term with a simple-slopes plot: two survival curves, high vs. low uncertainty, making the contingency legible at a glance. The result is fewer exhibits doing more work, each self-contained, and the mechanism visible to a reviewer in the first figure rather than reconstructed from a coefficient table.

Output format

【Journal】Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
【Mechanism figure】present? entrepreneurial labels? Y/N
【Core exhibit suite】list matched to paper type
【Results table】leads with magnitude (effect size + CI)? Y/N
【Moderation】shown as simple-slopes plot? Y/N
【Qual exhibits】Gioia data structure + process model? (if applicable)
【APA + self-contained】titles/notes/abbrevs defined? Y/N
【Next skill】etp-writing-style