# Jbv Review Process > 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. - Skill: `thedixitjain/jbv-review-process` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/jbv-review-process` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/jbv-review-process/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/jbv-review-process --- # 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) ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Business-Venturing-Skills/skills/jbv-review-process/SKILL.md`