SPECIAL ISSUE CALL FOR REVIEW ARTICLES & EDITORIAL

The Journal of Business Venturing invites submissions of literature reviews

of entrepreneurship research (no deadline; accepted articles will be placed

in a virtual special issue as they come). To this effect, a recent

editorial offers guidance aimed to improve the alignment of expectations

between authors and the editorial team. We invite authors to submit quality

review articles that push the field forward by embracing the

"entrepreneurship" way. The editorial discusses what makes reviews of

entrepreneurship research unique, and highlights factors that JBV

emphasizes when assessing review manuscripts. We call on authors to write

review articles that align with JBV’s motto—bold, broad, and rigorous.

Review articles can be submitted here -

https://www.editorialmanager.com/jbv/default1.aspx

Select Review Article

Cite editorial article as: Bacq, S., Drover, W., & Kim, P. H. (2021). Writing bold, broad, and rigorous review articles in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(6), 106147.

Link to editorial article- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883902621000574?via%3Dihub

1

WRITING BOLD, BROAD, AND RIGOROUS REVIEW ARTICLES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

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

Abstract

Despite the importance of review articles in entrepreneurship, specific guidance to authors remains

limited. Alongside JBV’s new rolling annual review issue, we provide authors practical tips for preparing

review articles. Building on widely accepted principles employed in general management 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.

Editorial Click here to view linked References

2

WRITING BOLD, BROAD, AND RIGOROUS REVIEW ARTICLES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

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 courses 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; this contributes, at least partially, to why

many submitted reviews fall short of expectations. As such, alongside the announcement of JBV’s new

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 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

3

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.

____________________

Insert Table 1 about Here

____________________

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.

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

4

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 and colleagues (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

5

compelling case that an updated review is needed. Has a considerable 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.

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.

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

6

respondents recommended devoting from 25 to 50 percent of the entire review article to 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.

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 entrepreneurship. 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.

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, narratives, and interpretations of the antecedents, mechanisms, and/or consequences of

entrepreneurship. This multi-disciplinary, multi-functional, and multi-contextual journal aspires to

7

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 consideration 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 entrepreneurship 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

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

8

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 entrepreneurship (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 differences in data across the reviewed papers to the topic of

the review, and charting a course for future research that is integrative.

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 entrepreneurs, 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 geography journals as researchers publish contextualized studies connecting entrepreneurship

with other allied disciplines (Welter & Baker, 2020). 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

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

9

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.

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 contributions, 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 entrepreneurship 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

10

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 and colleagues (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 entrepreneurship 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 theoretical 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.

Rigorous Review Articles

We ask authors to be rigorous in their reviews. Reflecting the third pillar of JBV, rigorous articles will

show evidence of thoroughness, exhaustiveness, and accuracy. Authors demonstrate rigor by their review

design, documented choices, and future research agenda.

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

11

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.

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).

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

12

agenda should follow a rationale that embodies a rigorous and systematic 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

could consider articulating 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 could 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 could 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.

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 perspectives among entrepreneurship scholars, the

editorial team does not expect each submission will contain every single piece of guidance in this

13

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.

14

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. Journal of Business Venturing,

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. 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.

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.

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.

Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for Scholarly Publication. Sage.

Ireland, R., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research.

Journal of Management, 33(6), 891-927.

Kiss, A. N., Danis, W. M., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2012). International entrepreneurship research in

emerging economies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing,

27(2), 266-290.

Kimjeon, J., & Davidsson, P. (2021). External enablers of entrepreneurship: A review and

agenda for accumulation of strategically actionable knowledge. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 10422587211010673.

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.

Mmbaga, N. A., Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Cardon, M. S. (2020). A review of and

future agenda for research on identity in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6),

106049.

Patriotta, G. (2020). Writing impactful review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6),

1272-1276.

15

Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles.

Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 351-376.

Rauch, A. (2020). Opportunities and threats in reviewing entrepreneurship theory and practice.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(5), 847-860.

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.

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.

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.

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. Journal of Management, 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.

Journal of Management, 45(1), 159-196.

Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1312-1317.

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.

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.

Welter, F., & Baker, T. (2020). Moving contexts onto new roads: Clues from other

disciplines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258720930996.

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.

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.

16

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.

Emphasize trajectory when reviewing emergent areas.

Demonstrate the existence of a minimum critical mass of research

(i.e., at least 21-30 papers).

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.

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.

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.

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.

17

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.

Point to new theories, tensions, gaps, frameworks, or boundary

conditions that deserve attention.

Clearly connect the review and future research sections.

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.

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.

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 of JBV’s

mission.

Specify how the topics clearly relate to entrepreneurship.

Account for high degrees of heterogeneity, highlighting and

connecting differences in data across the reviewed papers.

Mmbaga, N. A., Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Cardon, M.

S. (2020). A review of and future agenda for research on identity

in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), 106049.

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.

Broad Samples Incorporate entrepreneurship research published in other fields than

management and entrepreneurship.

Adopt a broad mindset when selecting the journal set included for

review.

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.

Broad Reach Identify how insights can be exported to influence various

stakeholders (e.g., other literatures/topics, practitioners,

policymakers).

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.

18

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.

Rigorous Review

Articles

Summarized Advice Exemplar Entrepreneurship Research Review Articles with

Rigorous Characteristics

Rigorous Design Document and justify the review type.

Employ methodological best practices.

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.

Rigorous

Documentation

Provide full transparency on details of the review.

Justify/substantiate key methodological choices.

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.

Rigorous Agenda

for Future

Research

Adopt a systematic approach when deriving future research avenues

from the findings.

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.

19

Consider Huff’s (1999) “scholarly cocktail party” metaphor,

delineating new conversation starters and sustainers from the

review.

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.