Journal of Business Venturing 36 (2021) 106147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Venturing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusvent

Writing bold, broad, and rigorous review articles

in entrepreneurship☆
Sophie Bacq a, Will Drover b, *, Phillip H. Kim c
a
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, United States of America
b
Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, United States of America
c
Blank Center for Entrepreneurship, Babson College, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite the importance of review articles in entrepreneurship, specific guidance to authors re­
Editorial mains limited. Alongside JBV's rolling annual review issue, we provide authors practical tips for
Review article guidance preparing review articles. Building on widely accepted principles employed in general manage­
Review issue
ment review articles, we tailor our guidance to the “entrepreneurship” way of writing review
articles in entrepreneurship. Specifically, we call on authors to write bold, broad, and rigorous
reviews that exemplify JBV's mission to publish and disseminate high-quality entrepreneurship
research.

“This is the (Entrepreneurship) Way” – The Mandalorian

Review articles play a critical role in the scholarly domain of entrepreneurship. By synthesizing, organizing, and taking stock of the
past, reviews can assist with charting new research pathways for the future (e.g., Brownell et al., 2021; Drover et al., 2017; Grégoire
et al., 2019; Kiss et al., 2012; Shepherd et al., 2015; Zahra et al., 2006). Because the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) has not formally
solicited review articles, there has been minimal guidance provided to authors in the past; this contributes, at least partially, to why
many submitted reviews fall short of expectations. As such, alongside the announcement of JBV’s rolling annual review issue, the
purpose of this editorial is to identify and elaborate on several key factors that both JBV editors and the review board will emphasize
when assessing review manuscripts.
Since several excellent pieces on writing review articles already exist (e.g., Patriotta, 2020; Post et al., 2020; Rauch, 2020; Short,
2009), we recommend authors first spend time becoming familiar with these general principles. These articles instruct authors in
designing, executing, and writing high-quality review articles and avoiding common pitfalls in the process. This preparation will be
invaluable to both novice and experienced authors alike.
Using these general principles as a starting point, we advise authors on how to apply them to meet JBV's editorial standards and
vision of impactful and effective reviews of entrepreneurship research. We offer contextualized guidance to improve the alignment of
expectations between authors and the editorial team. As with any evaluation of scholarly work, there will be a subjective component
associated with how authors use this guidance to prepare their submissions and how different editors and reviewer teams apply this
guidance when judging the quality of a submission. Rather than interpreting this guidance as a “contract” by which fulfilling every

☆
Authors contributed equally and are listed alphabetically. We thank our editor, Scott Newbert, and our anonymous reviewer for their
excellent guidance. We also thank our editorial colleagues for their input.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bacqs@iu.edu (S. Bacq), drover@ou.edu (W. Drover), pkim1@babson.edu (P.H. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106147
Received 22 June 2021; Received in revised form 6 August 2021; Accepted 11 August 2021
Available online 20 August 2021
0883-9026/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Bacq et al. Journal of Business Venturing 36 (2021) 106147

item will lead to an acceptance, we view them as a minimum baseline for publication. These recommendations emphasize elements
necessary to write bold, broad, and rigorous reviews in entrepreneurship but do not guarantee publication. However, we expect that a
review following these guidelines will have higher chances of publication compared to a submission that does not. We believe that the
net result will enhance the quality and impact of review articles that push the field of entrepreneurship forward.
We initiated this editorial by surveying key decision-makers at the Journal of Business Venturing—field editors and members of the
editorial review board—to capture a purposely broad range of perspectives and form more inclusive guidelines for publishing effective
and impactful review articles in entrepreneurship. In the following sections, we identify and elaborate on the most common factors and
takeaways that emerged. As a result of the editorial input, we call on authors to write review articles that align with JBV's motto—bold,
broad, and rigorous—which we use as the organizing framework throughout this editorial. For each piece of guidance, we offer
practical examples and recommend published exemplars to consult, all summarized in Table 1. To simplify the exposition, we
selectively highlight examples from Table 1 to elaborate more in our discussion.

Table 1
Review articles that represent bold, broad, and rigorous characteristics.
Bold Review Articles Summarized Advice Exemplar Entrepreneurship Research Review Articles
with Bold Characteristics

Bold Topics Demonstrate a compelling case for why a review is needed
on a given topic area.
Acknowledge and articulate clearly the extent of overlap
or redundancy with existing reviews.
Pursue emergent areas that have considerable growth
potential.
Rietveld, C. A., Slob, E. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2020). A
decade of research on the genetics of entrepreneurship: a
review and view ahead. Small Business Economics, 1-15.
Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015).
Thinking About Entrepreneurial Decision Making: Review
and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11-
46.

Emphasize trajectory when reviewing emergent areas. Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006).
Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review,
Demonstrate the existence of a minimum critical mass of model and research agenda. Journal of Management
research (i.e., at least 21-30 papers). Studies, 43(4), 917-955.

Adopt bold stances on established topics and justify the
need for a review on established topics.
Ensure a long enough time (e.g., 6 to 10 years) has passed
since the last published review.
Zhao, H., O’Connor, G., Wu, J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2021).
Age and entrepreneurial career success: A review and a
meta-analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(1),
106007.

Bold Reflections on Existing Research
Move beyond simple categorization or counting of past
works.
Put forward a meaningful synthesis that benefits future
research.
Justify why/how resolving issues with past works
advances the reviewed topic.
Leverage past work to predict areas of future research
scrutiny.
Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., & Wiklund, J.
(2019). What are we explaining? A review and agenda on
initiating, engaging, performing, and contextualizing
entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 45(1), 159-196.
Sutter, C., Bruton, G. D., & Chen, J. (2019).
Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: A
review and future research directions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 34(1), 197-214.

Bold Stances on Future Research
Take risks and stances when formulating future research
agendas such that the course of future research is
meaningfully influenced (i.e., non-incremental insights).
Offer ample space on forward-facing
implications—roughly ¼ to ½ of the review article.
Drover, W., Busenitz, L., Matusik, S., Townsend, D.,
Anglin, A., & Dushnitsky, G. (2017). A review and road
map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: venture
capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment,
crowdfunding, and accelerators. Journal of Management,
43(6), 1820-1853.

Point to new theories, tensions, gaps, frameworks, or Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015).
boundary conditions that deserve attention. Thinking About Entrepreneurial Decision Making: Review
and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 11-
Clearly connect the review and future research sections. 46.

Broad Review Articles Summarized Advice Exemplar Entrepreneurship Research Review Articles
with Broad Characteristics

Broad Topics Clarify that the topic fits within the broader journals scope Mmbaga, N. A., Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Cardon,
of JBV’s mission. M. S. (2020). A review of and future agenda for research
on identity in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Specify how the topics clearly relate to entrepreneurship. Venturing, 35(6), 106049.

Account for high degrees of heterogeneity, highlighting Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., & Wiklund, J.
(2019). What are we explaining? A review and agenda on

(continued on next page)

2
S. Bacq et al.
Table 1 (continued )
Bold Review Articles
Broad Samples
Broad Reach
Rigorous Review Articles
Rigorous Design
Rigorous Documentation
Rigorous Agenda for Future Research
Summarized Advice
and connecting differences in data across the reviewed
papers.
Incorporate entrepreneurship research published in other
fields than management and entrepreneurship.
Adopt a broad mindset when selecting the journal set
included for review.
Identify how insights can be exported to influence various
stakeholders (e.g., other literatures/topics, practitioners,
policymakers).
Summarized Advice
Document and justify the review type.
Employ methodological best practices.
Provide full transparency on details of the review.
Justify/substantiate key methodological choices.
Adopt a systematic approach when deriving future
research avenues from the findings.
Consider Huff’s (1999) “scholarly cocktail party”
metaphor, delineating new conversation starters and
sustainers from the review.
3
Journal of Business Venturing 36 (2021) 106147
Exemplar Entrepreneurship Research Review Articles
with Bold Characteristics
initiating, engaging, performing, and contextualizing
entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 45(1), 159-196.
Ireland, R., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A cross-disciplinary
exploration of entrepreneurship research. Journal of
Management, 33(6), 891-927.
Kimjeon, J., & Davidsson, P. (2021). External enablers of
entrepreneurship: A review and agenda for accumulation
of strategically actionable knowledge. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 10422587211010673.
Sutter, C., Bruton, G. D., & Chen, J. (2019).
Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: A
review and future research directions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 34(1), 197-214.
Matthews, R. S., Chalmers, D. M., & Fraser, S. S. (2018).
The intersection of entrepreneurship and selling: An
interdisciplinary review, framework, and future research
agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(6), 691-719.
Sutter, C., Bruton, G. D., & Chen, J. (2019).
Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: A
review and future research directions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 34(1), 197-214.
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006).
Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review,
model and research agenda. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(4), 917-955.
Exemplar Entrepreneurship Research Review Articles
with Rigorous Characteristics
Brownell, K. M., McMullen, J. S., & O’Boyle Jr, E. H.
(2021). Fatal attraction: A systematic review and research
agenda of the dark triad in entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 36(3), 106106.
Scheaf, D. J., & Wood, M. S. (in press). Entrepreneurial
fraud: A multidisciplinary review and synthesized
framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, https://
doi.org/10.1177/10422587211001818.
Bruton, G., Sutter, C., & Lenz, A. K. (2021). Economic
inequality–Is entrepreneurship the cause or the solution?
A review and research agenda for emerging economies.
Journal of Business Venturing, 36(3), 106095.
Davidsson, P., & Gruenhagen, J. H. (in press). Fulfilling
the process promise: A review and agenda for new venture
creation process research. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720930991.
Grégoire, D. A., Binder, J. K., & Rauch, A. (2019).
Navigating the validity tradeoffs of entrepreneurship
research experiments: A systematic review and best-
practice suggestions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2),
284-310.
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert S.L. 2019.
Social impact measurement: Current approaches and
future directions for social entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82-115.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009).
Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions
and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 3(2), 161-194.
S. Bacq et al. Journal of Business Venturing 36 (2021) 106147

1. Bold review articles

We encourage authors to write bold review articles. Like the entrepreneurs and ventures our field examines, JBV invites bold
approaches, topics, and author stances. JBV has a rich tradition of rewarding authors who take smart risks, push existing boundaries,
and operate with intrepid mindsets. Review articles are no exception. Authors can prepare bold review articles regarding their topic
choices, cogent reflections of past research, and stances on future directions.

1.1. Bold topics

The editorial team at JBV values reviews of both emergent and established areas of entrepreneurship research. Concerning the
former, we challenge authors to follow an entrepreneurial spirit and review emergent or cutting-edge research domains or theories. As
illustrative examples, Zhao et al. (2021) reviewed the emerging role of age in entrepreneurship, while Rietveld et al. (2020) reviewed
the relatively nascent, yet growing body of work on genetics in entrepreneurship. A well-constructed review of a bold, emergent
research domain may help steer its development by harmonizing concepts and definitions, contributing to accelerating the domain's
future growth. Consider, for instance, the work of Zahra et al. (2006: 918); by surfacing “important (but subtle) inconsistencies and
ambiguities in the extant literature,” their review of dynamic capabilities in entrepreneurship helped to propel the emerging area
forward in profound ways. Notably, it is important for authors to make a compelling case for why a review is needed within an
emergent area, emphasizing its trajectory as one of the salient factors. As one editor noted: When considering bold new areas,
“[authors] need to show why this emerging area of literature matters and what type of impact (what kinds of change) it is likely to spark
throughout other fields/areas.” For instance, despite the explosive growth in crowdfunding and entrepreneurial affect research in the
last decade, these emergent research areas may not have qualified for formal review articles at other journals during their earlier stages
of development. However, early thorough reviews during the nascent development stage of these domains could have assessed the
research findings to date and helped researchers to build on this initial foundation in subsequent research efforts. If authors select this
pathway, it will be critical for them to demonstrate that a meaningful body of work to assess already exists. Most editors indicated there
should be a minimum critical mass of at least 21–30 quality papers to review and form a foundation of research to evaluate.
While review articles might focus on emergent areas, they might also focus on well-trodden or more established areas within the
field of entrepreneurship. When doing so, it is important to bear a few points in mind. First, authors should assure they are fleshing out
bold topics or angles within the existing body of research. What is fundamentally new or insightful that the review effort can tell us? As
one JBV editor put it: “Beyond the standard language of theoretical or conceptual fragmentation or mixed empirical findings, readers should
understand why resolving these issues advances research in the reviewed topic.” Second, authors should be clear about the need for a review.
The lack of existing reviews is generally not an acceptable value proposition. In motivating reviews within more established areas,
authors should consider bold topics within that area, highlighting why and how such a review can add significant value to the existing
field. Third, if there are existing reviews, authors should make the compelling case that an updated review is needed. Has a consid­
erable body of work or a wave of new evidence emerged since the last review? Has the landscape changed in a meaningful way? As a
rough guideline, the majority of JBV editors expect 6–10 years to pass prior to introducing an updated review.

1.2. Bold reflections on existing research

It is also helpful for authors to generate bold reflections when assessing past works. Rather than conducting only bibliometric
analyses or simple categorizations, authors should put forward a meaningful synthesis of existing works in a way that is fundamentally
useful for other scholars. One editor commented: “Thus, the ‘backward’ looking part of the review should advance the topic in addition to the
future research directions that the ‘forward’ looking part of the review advances.” While another stated: “I want to ‘think different’ about the
topic after reading the review. Great reviews offer a new framework for how to think about the topic.” For instance, the work of Shepherd
et al. (2019) serves as an excellent example of a bold reflection of dependent variables in entrepreneurship; they deeply engage with
and synthesize existing research, which culminates in a useful meta-framework. By providing such summative frameworks and
identifying conceptual or empirical puzzles or other meaningful issues associated with existing research, authors can highlight why the
field benefits from their assessment and how overcoming these hurdles is useful to the field. In doing so, authors should be well-
positioned to share bold reflections on existing research—and possibly predictions—about areas that necessitate future scrutiny.
We turn to formulating this forward-facing guidance next.

1.3. Bold stances on future research

Relatedly, authors should be bold in their efforts to develop forward-facing implications arising from their review. We urge authors
to take a stand on the research topics they review such that a future research agenda alters the field in a meaningful way. While this
may appear as a risky strategy, the alternative can doom a submission. Many rejected review articles focus almost exclusively on
backward-facing reflections that simply count or categorize past research and neglect offering any meaningful or compelling forward-
facing implications. The majority of our survey respondents recommended devoting from 25 to 50% of the entire review article to

4
S. Bacq et al. Journal of Business Venturing 36 (2021) 106147

articulating the forward-facing agenda. As one JBV editor put it: “Don't just summarize, analyze or synthesize, but also use the opportunity
to theorize creative new insights for future research.” Readers might refer to Drover et al. (2017) or Shepherd et al. (2015), which both
offer bold paths of future research possibilities following each key area that is reviewed; many of the suggested research directions take
risks and go beyond the obvious, safer way forward. An effective review can set future research on a clear path to resolve existing
tensions, inconsistencies, and gaps in the literature, and/or point to new theories, frameworks, or boundary conditions that deserve
attention. This portion of the review is an author's opportunity to chart new directions that ultimately shape how future research occurs
in non-trivial ways.

2. Broad review articles

Entrepreneurship is inherently a field that spans disciplines (Shane, 2003). Thus, another core pillar of JBV is its broad nature.
Positioned as an interdisciplinary journal, JBV operates as a large tent covering a range of topics and disciplines related to entre­
preneurship. Since JBV publishes research on the entrepreneurial phenomenon, authors can also encompass practical insights into
their review and make them accessible beyond just a scholarly audience. Thus, review articles at JBV can benefit from reflecting the
broad nature of the field and audience in terms of their topics, samples, and reach.

2.1. Broad topics

While JBV has a broad focus and thus embraces many sub-areas, authors should nonetheless make it evident to the reader that their
review truly fits with the entrepreneurship focus of JBV. Thus, we encourage a broad range of reviews as long as their topic relates to
entrepreneurship. The journal has a longstanding focus of providing “a scholarly forum for sharing useful and interesting theories, nar­
ratives, and interpretations of the antecedents, mechanisms, and/or consequences of entrepreneurship. This multi-disciplinary, multi-functional,
and multi-contextual journal aspires to deepen our understanding of the entrepreneurial phenomenon in its myriad of forms.”1 When
developing reviews, we ask authors to leverage the interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship and connect to other business fields,
the social sciences, or the humanities, which often house interesting insights that can complement existing streams of research within
entrepreneurship. In other words, taking a broad view, inspired by other disciplines, can often prove useful to paint a more complete
picture of an entrepreneurship phenomenon, even if the disciplinary insights do not necessarily relate to entrepreneurship in the first
place. As one editor illustrated: “A review can be particularly helpful for a nascent theoretical area/construct when it situates that theoretical
area/construct in the context of adjacent literatures. Could our existing literatures deal with it, or in what way do they fall short? Such a review
would help to carve the space out for the emerging area and help all subsequent authors in that area justify the need to focus on the new area. It
can also help to draw connections to other literatures that might be helpful to move the nascent literature forward.” And as another editor
pointed out, taking a broader approach can inspire new insights: “In addition to building on the review portion when crafting forward-facing
implications, it can be helpful when authors suggest perspectives from other topic areas or disciplines which could be used in future research.”
Thus, given the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurship and focus of JBV, it is generally expected that authors take a wide consid­
eration of what can inform or inspire their focal topic; a too narrow view often limits the potential of a review and its resultant impact.
We look for authors to write implications about their review syntheses that reach a broad audience, starting with the entrepreneurship
field and rippling outward to other adjacent fields within business or the social sciences, humanities, and beyond.
Conversely, review topics that are not at the core of entrepreneurship, or that are shoehorned to ‘fit’ within the field of entre­
preneurship when its contents fit more appropriately in another field, will have a low probability of success. As one editor succinctly
put it: “It's a dealbreaker when there's a lack of connection to an entrepreneurial phenomenon—the scope is outside of JBV's purview or very
tangential to it.”
We ask authors to recognize the multifaceted aspect of the entrepreneurship phenomenon and reflect this in their review. For
example, the label “entrepreneurship” is applied to many different phenomena, from informal economy shop owners in sub-Saharan
Africa to VC-backed companies in the coastal USA. We invite authors of review articles to embrace the broad character of entrepre­
neurship (i.e., celebrate the inherent diversity and richness of the phenomenon) but to do so carefully. Put differently, embracing broad
topics in an entrepreneurship review article means accounting for high degrees of heterogeneity, highlighting and connecting dif­
ferences in data across the reviewed papers to the topic of the review, and charting a course for future research that is integrative.

2.2. Broad samples

JBV's umbrella positioning invites reviews of research on entrepreneurship phenomena that, given their interdisciplinary nature,
may have been published in journals in other fields. For instance, psychology journals publish individual-level research on entre­
preneurs, sociology journals publish network-based research, and finance and economics journals publish venture capital research.
Depending on the review topic, authors may find relevant research on entrepreneurship in policy, development, or economic geog­
raphy journals as researchers publish contextualized studies connecting entrepreneurship with other allied disciplines (Welter and
Baker, 2021). We thus encourage entrepreneurship researchers to think broadly when they choose the journals to include in their
review. As one editor put it: “Authors sometimes focus too narrowly on their journal set, in turn missing key research or important pieces of the

1
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-business-venturing

5
S. Bacq et al. Journal of Business Venturing 36 (2021) 106147

puzzle that may be published in other journals or domains.” For instance, with this point presumably in mind, Kimjeon and Davidsson
(2021: 6) initiated their search using the Financial Times (FT) list of top 50 journals, plus other carefully selected journals largely given
“the cross-disciplinary appeal of the [external enablers] phenomenon” in which they were reviewing. Similarly, Sutter et al. (2019) drew from
journals within the FT list, the Association of Business School's List (ABS list), and other hand-selected relevant journals, further noting
that: “As a result, searching within these journals allowed us to gain a broad view of the overarching perspectives regarding poverty
alleviation and entrepreneurship” (Sutter et al., 2019: 199). Also taking a broader approach, Ireland and Webb (2007) considered a set
of premier journals across 10 fields for their initial sample. The overarching point is that entrepreneurship research, and research
relevant to entrepreneurship, are not bound entirely to our “management and entrepreneurship” journals. Thus, authors should bear
this in mind when considering the breadth of their research samples for review articles. We ask authors to cast a wide net for input into
what they review.

2.3. Broad reach

While some of the guidelines so far should be viewed as minimum requirements for publishing review articles in JBV, we offer
authors more flexibility for reaching broad audiences. These include ways intended to speak to other scholarly fields and disciplines or
offer insights to practitioners.
Authors can write their reviews to reach a broad scholarly audience. Besides “importing” theoretical lenses, concepts, and contexts
from others fields and disciplines, we challenge authors to write their synthesis in ways that benefit adjacent business fields and other
social science and humanities disciplines—in other words, “exporting.” Historically, entrepreneurship research has drawn heavily
from these other fields and disciplines (e.g., psychology, economics, sociology), which has sparked debates about the authenticity and
unique characteristics of entrepreneurship scholarship.
In contrast, by adopting an “export mindset,” we call on authors to seek outward connections in terms of new conceptual con­
tributions, research design implications, and other pathways for integrating entrepreneurship insights into the scholarship of these
adjacent fields and disciplines. A well-crafted synthesis can offer opportunities for authors to speak not only to mainstream entre­
preneurship scholars but also attract the attention of scholars who would not typically identify themselves with our field. Writing with
an export mindset also benefits our field by making our research less insular and beneficial to a broader audience.
Writing to reach a broad audience can also mean translating the scholarly concepts and findings to a practitioner audience—making
them more accessible to entrepreneurs, managers, investors, and policymakers. One defining feature of entrepreneurship research is
that it has a close relationship to the underlying phenomenon. While this close affiliation may be a disadvantage in some academic
circles, we invite authors to embrace this closer connection to the phenomenon and use it to their advantage to reach a broader
practitioner audience. In their review, Zahra et al. (2006), for instance, delineate a number of useful managerial implications that
relate to dynamic capabilities, while Sutter et al. (2019) thread in a number of useful insights for practice on the topic of entrepre­
neurship and extreme poverty. Authors can improve their reach in different ways, including but not limited to: a) weaving together
scholarly insights with practical implications, b) translating abstract ideas that could later appear in mainstream or business media, or
c) explaining empirical findings so that a lay audience can easily digest the essence and apply the takeaway to their circumstances. Lay
readers of effective and impactful reviews will demonstrate a fine-grained understanding of the phenomenon and grasp novel theo­
retical insights offered by the authors. An ideal outcome will be when practitioners can apply the review's insights and achieve
substantive differences in how they undertake some type of entrepreneurial effort. We do not prescribe a specific format for this
translation and call on authors' creativity to achieve this outcome persuasively and efficiently.

3. Rigorous review articles

We ask authors to be rigorous in their reviews. Reflecting the third pillar of JBV, rigorous articles will show evidence of thor­
oughness, exhaustiveness, and accuracy. Authors demonstrate rigor by their review design, documented choices, and future research
agenda.

3.1. Rigorous design

Authors should follow state-of-the-art review methods and best practices. At the highest level, it is important to justify the choice of
review style. Rauch (2020) distinguished between five types of reviews—meta-analysis, systematic literature review, bibliographic
analysis, synthesis of qualitative research, and historiometric analysis. This author effectively outlined how these types differ in data
used (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, diaries, databases), methodologies, contributions, and other criteria. We recommend that authors
consult this typology as they design their review framework. As one JBV editor reflected: “Many types of review articles exist. I think it is
important that the authors identify the most relevant type for their research purpose and motivate their choice.” Another editor stated that a
major issue is when there is a “lack of motivation for a chosen review methodology.” It is important, then, for authors to establish a
compelling case for why their chosen style of review is the optimal choice for the body of work in which they are conducting a review.
This rationale should be clearly communicated.

6
S. Bacq et al. Journal of Business Venturing 36 (2021) 106147

3.2. Rigorous documentation

While different types of reviews are associated with different standards and requirements, the design procedures need to be
transparent and replicable. Authors should include details such as search parameters (journals, timespan, keywords used to select the
initial sample); sample (paper information, inclusion/exclusion criteria); coding procedures (number of coders, process, resolution of
coding differences in the case of multiple coders), and comparison to current best practices. Importantly, it is paramount for authors to
offer justification for why they made these choices. Further expanding on the explanation, one editor noted: “The logic underpinning
journal and keyword selection is critical and must be carefully articulated and assessed.” Many unsuccessful reviews do not follow best
practices or are overly vague on the details of their approach. As with any high-quality empirical article, authors should be clear on
why and how they made their choices; authors are on safer ground when erring on the side of over- versus under-supplying details and
rationale that pertain to the methodology. As best practice illustrations of rigorous documentation, readers might refer to Bruton et al.
(2021), Davidsson and Gruenhagen (in press) and Grégoire et al. (2019).

3.3. Rigorous agenda for future research

Finally, with the forward-looking research agenda expected to occupy significant space, we anticipate authors to outline their
future research agenda just as rigorously as their historical synthesis of past research. Since the synthesis will depend on quantitative
and qualitative analyses of the body of scholarship reviewed, the discussion of future research avenues should also include an
interpretation of these findings. Authors should avoid giving the impression that they have cherry-picked the issues and areas of
exploration in future research. In contrast, the future research agenda should follow a rationale that embodies a rigorous and sys­
tematic framework that guides future works. We stress that the future research portion should be clearly linked to or informed by the
backward-facing review portion. As one editor cautions: “It can be a dealbreaker when there is a disconnection between the [review portion]
and future research agenda.” Rigor should thus be the common thread that connects all sections of a well-crafted, impactful, and overall
effective review article.
As authors prepare their forward-thinking synthesis, we offer a few practical tips. First, authors should articulate clear connections
between specific papers among the corpus of scholarship reviewed that are not necessarily apparent to the original authors. Consider
using the “scholarly cocktail party” metaphor offered by Huff (1999) to generate these connections. What new conversation starters
and sustainers can be drawn from your review and propel future research in new directions? Second, authors should summarize the
most important contributions of their review in short but meaningful ways. With the abundance of research to evaluate, a framework,
figure, or other visual can provide readers with a way to retain and reuse such contributions in their future work. These should be
organized by meaningful characteristics relevant to a given topic, such as theoretical foundations and key assumptions used in the
papers reviewed, types of samples (e.g., in terms of venture size, age, entrepreneur characteristics), and contextual or environmental
conditions. Continuing with the cocktail party metaphor, authors should further offer their readers something simple enough that can
be digested, remembered, and shared with others in their conversation circles. Thinking creatively about titles, phrases, and summary
sentences is another way to crystallize a review's key contributions, moving the review from purely summative to generative.

4. Conclusion

Our goal is to offer practical guidance to JBV authors submitting review articles to the rolling annual review issue. This editorial
provides a wide range of advice in line with the “bold, broad, and rigorous” motto of JBV. Given the creativity and different per­
spectives among entrepreneurship scholars, the editorial team does not expect each submission will contain every single piece of
guidance in this editorial. However, editors will use these guidelines as a starting point to help reviewers evaluate review article
submissions and to inform their decisions. We hope that this editorial contributes to aligning authors' expectations with JBV's editorial
team, improving entrepreneurship scholars' ability to impact future research with their review article, ultimately pushing the field
forward in bold, broad, and rigorous new directions.

Credit authorship contribution statement

Sophie Bacq: Contributed equally to conceptualizing and writing the editorial.

Will Drover: Contributed equally to conceptualizing and writing the editorial.
Phillip H. Kim: Contributed equally to conceptualizing and writing the editorial.

References

Brownell, K.M., McMullen, J.S., O’Boyle Jr., E.H., 2021. Fatal attraction: a systematic review and research agenda of the dark triad in entrepreneurship. J. Bus.
Ventur. 36 (3), 106106.
Bruton, G., Sutter, C., Lenz, A.K., 2021. Economic inequality—is entrepreneurship the cause or the solution? A review and research agenda for emerging economies.
J. Bus. Ventur. 36 (3), 106095.
Davidsson, P., Gruenhagen, J.H., 2021. Fulfilling the process promise: a review and agenda for new venture creation process research. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720930991 (in press).
Drover, W., Busenitz, L., Matusik, S., Townsend, D., Anglin, A., Dushnitsky, G., 2017. A review and road map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: venture
capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. J. Manag. 43 (6), 1820–1853.

7
S. Bacq et al. Journal of Business Venturing 36 (2021) 106147

Grégoire, D.A., Binder, J.K., Rauch, A., 2019. Navigating the validity tradeoffs of entrepreneurship research experiments: a systematic review and best-practice
suggestions. J. Bus. Ventur. 34 (2), 284–310.
Huff, A.S., 1999. Writing for Scholarly Publication. Sage.
Ireland, R., Webb, J.W., 2007. A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research. J. Manag. 33 (6), 891–927.
Kimjeon, J., Davidsson, P., 2021. External enablers of entrepreneurship: a review and agenda for accumulation of strategically actionable knowledge.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 10422587211010673.
Kiss, A.N., Danis, W.M., Cavusgil, S.T., 2012. International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies: a critical review and research agenda. J. Bus. Ventur. 27
(2), 266–290.
Patriotta, G., 2020. Writing impactful review articles. J. Manag. Stud. 57 (6), 1272–1276.
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., Prescott, J.E., 2020. Advancing theory with review articles. J. Manag. Stud. 57 (2), 351–376.
Rauch, A., 2020. Opportunities and threats in reviewing entrepreneurship theory and practice. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44 (5), 847–860.
Rietveld, C.A., Slob, E.A., Thurik, A.R., 2020. A Decade of Research on the Genetics of Entrepreneurship: A Review and View Ahead. Small Business Economics,
pp. 1–15.
Shane, S., 2003. A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-opportunity Nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shepherd, D.A., Williams, T.A., Patzelt, H., 2015. Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: review and research agenda. J. Manag. 41 (1), 11–46.
Shepherd, D.A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., Wiklund, J., 2019. What are we explaining? A review and agenda on initiating, engaging, performing, and contextualizing
entrepreneurship. J. Manag. 45 (1), 159–196.
Short, J., 2009. The art of writing a review article. J. Manag. 35 (6), 1312–1317.
Sutter, C., Bruton, G.D., Chen, J., 2019. Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: a review and future research directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 34 (1), 197–214.
Welter, F., Baker, T., 2021. Moving contexts onto new roads: clues from other disciplines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 45 (1), 1154–1175.
Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J., Davidsson, P., 2006. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 43 (4), 917–955.
Zhao, H., O’Connor, G., Wu, J., Lumpkin, G.T., 2021. Age and entrepreneurial career success: a review and a meta-analysis. J. Bus. Ventur. 36 (1), 106007.