Journal of Business Venturing Submission Guide
A source-checked Journal of Business Venturing guide for entrepreneurship fit, theoretical mechanism, evidence, highlights, anonymity, and submission readiness.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to approach Journal of Business Venturing
Use the submission guide like a working checklist. The goal is to make fit, package completeness, and cover-letter framing obvious before you open the portal.
Stage | What to check |
|---|---|
1. Scope | Test entrepreneurship ownership |
2. Package | Prepare the anonymous manuscript and separate title page |
3. Cover letter | Complete highlights and data statements |
4. Final check | Submit through the current Elsevier route |
Quick answer: Submit to the Journal of Business Venturing when the manuscript deepens understanding of an entrepreneurial phenomenon and makes the mechanism legible across theory, evidence, and implication. A sample of founders, startups, investors, or small firms does not create fit if the research question is a generic management or psychology question.
Use this Journal of Business Venturing submission guide to test entrepreneurship ownership, theoretical mechanism, evidence accessibility, double-anonymized files, highlights, data disclosure, and final package readiness.
Elsevier publishes the Journal of Business Venturing. Its multidisciplinary reach does not make the scope generic: entrepreneurial action or consequence still has to own the paper's central explanation.
JBV's current scope welcomes multiple disciplines, functions, and contexts, but centers the antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences of entrepreneurship. Interdisciplinarity is valuable when it changes the entrepreneurship explanation, not when it imports a complete theory and treats ventures as another dataset.
Evidence basis: We checked the current JBV journal page, Guide for Authors, and linked Elsevier data and ethics policies on August 19, 2026. Publisher facts are sourced. The decision framework below is Manusights editorial judgment.
Source limitation: Publisher pages define scope and package requirements but not private editor deliberations. This guide cannot predict an editorial decision or acceptance. Current timelines and charges are volatile and are not used as a promise about an individual submission.
Stop signal: Pause if founders or ventures are only the sample for a generic relationship, or if the manuscript jumps between individual, venture, and ecosystem claims without evidence connecting those levels.
From our manuscript review practice
JBV fit is not created by studying founders or ventures. The paper must explain an entrepreneurial mechanism and show why the evidence changes what the field understands about entrepreneurial action or outcomes.
JBV decision at a glance
Gate | Evidence to inspect | Hold when |
|---|---|---|
Entrepreneurship ownership | The question concerns entrepreneurial action, opportunity, organizing, financing, context, process, or consequence | Founders or ventures are only the sample for a generic relationship |
Mechanism | The paper explains how and why an entrepreneurial outcome occurs | A set of significant paths is presented as theory |
Cross-level logic | Individual, team, venture, ecosystem, and institutional claims are connected without slippage | Evidence at one level is used to infer a mechanism at another |
Evidence accessibility | Design and analysis are understandable to the multidisciplinary JBV audience | Technical complexity prevents readers from evaluating the entrepreneurial claim |
Reuse and transparency | Data, code, materials, or a truthful non-sharing statement support auditability | The data promise conflicts with consent, contracts, or the actual repository plan |
Prove that entrepreneurship owns the question
Remove the words “entrepreneur,” “startup,” and “venture” from the research question. If the claim remains a general statement about leadership, identity, finance, innovation, or team performance, identify the entrepreneurial condition that changes the explanation.
That condition might be extreme uncertainty, resource assembly without established authority, opportunity construction, founder ownership, venture emergence, investor-founder bargaining, institutional voids, or the interaction between new organizations and ecosystems. The paper should show why this condition is theoretically active rather than decorative.
Build the mechanism across levels
Layer | Question | Evidence that helps |
|---|---|---|
Antecedent | What initiates or constrains entrepreneurial action? | Temporal ordering, comparison, exogenous change, or process evidence |
Action | What do entrepreneurs, teams, investors, or institutions actually do? | Behavioral trace, decision record, observation, or validated measure |
Mechanism | Through what process does the action affect the outcome? | Mediating sequence, rival test, negative case, or within-case contrast |
Outcome | What changes for the venture, stakeholders, field, or society? | Consequential outcome with uncertainty and boundary analysis |
Context | Which market, institutional, cultural, or technological conditions alter the process? | Direct comparison or theory-grounded interaction, not a control-variable list |
Do not jump from individual intentions to venture survival or from ecosystem characteristics to founder behavior without evidence connecting the levels.
Make rigorous work accessible
JBV's multidisciplinary audience includes scholars trained in economics, psychology, sociology, strategy, finance, marketing, and other fields. Accessibility does not mean removing rigor. It means the entrepreneurial question, assumptions, identification, and consequence remain understandable outside one method community.
For econometric work, explain the identifying variation and its substantive meaning before presenting estimator detail. For qualitative work, show the sampling and data-to-concept path rather than relying on vivid quotes. For experiments, connect the treatment to an entrepreneurial decision rather than a generic behavioral response. For theory, name the observable implications that distinguish the proposed mechanism from familiar alternatives.
Worked example: investor feedback and venture pivots
When the entrepreneurship owner and cross-level mechanism remain unclear, run a free JBV readiness scan before writing the final highlights.
Suppose a study finds that startups receiving more investor feedback pivot more often. A weak paper interprets the association as evidence that investors improve adaptation.
A stronger JBV paper separates feedback volume from feedback authority and founders' dependence on the investor. It follows when founders accept, resist, or reinterpret advice, compares pivots that change the value proposition with superficial repositioning, and examines downstream venture consequences. The mechanism explains how resource dependence changes entrepreneurial judgment under uncertainty. Investor feedback is no longer just a predictor; it becomes part of a bounded entrepreneurial process.
Prepare the abstract and highlights as one promise
The current author guide asks for a concise abstract of no more than 250 words, 1 to 7 keywords, and a separate file containing 3 to 5 highlights, each no more than 85 characters including spaces.
Use the abstract to state the question, design, principal result, mechanism, and boundary. Use the highlights to identify the few findings a reader should remember. If the highlights make stronger claims than the abstract or evidence, the package is not ready.
Artifact | Should contain | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
Abstract | Purpose, design, principal result, mechanism, and bounded consequence | Literature inventory or unexplained method labels |
Keywords | Specific, stable concepts readers use | Promotional phrases or near-duplicate keyword strings |
Highlights | Three to five concrete contributions or findings | “First,” “novel,” or “important” without the actual result |
Plan data and material disclosure honestly
The current JBV guide identifies Elsevier research-data Option C. Authors are asked to deposit and link research data when possible or explain why sharing is not possible. Do not promise a public dataset when participant consent, founder confidentiality, investor agreements, platform terms, or commercial sensitivity forbid it.
Instead, state the exact boundary and preserve auditability through materials such as code, instruments, construct definitions, simulated examples, de-identified excerpts, a controlled-access route, or a documented validation procedure. The data statement and manuscript should agree.
Failure patterns to repair
When we assess a JBV-targeted manuscript, we compare the entrepreneurial question, theoretical mechanism, unit of analysis, identification or sampling logic, main result, and implication as one chain.
Ventures are only the setting. The study could be transferred to established firms without changing the explanation. Identify the entrepreneurial condition that changes the mechanism.
Levels drift. Individual survey responses are used to claim venture performance or ecosystem change. Align constructs and claims or add evidence connecting the levels.
Method sophistication hides the contribution. The reader sees models before understanding the entrepreneurial problem. Explain the question, variation, and consequence before technical detail.
Implications become founder advice without evidence. A theory result is converted into universal recommendations. Identify the actor, decision, context, trade-off, and evidence boundary.
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Prepare the current package
JBV currently uses double-anonymized peer review. Prepare a separate title page with author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, competing-interest information, and corresponding-author details. Remove identities from the review manuscript, file properties, self-references, repository links, and filenames.
The current guide requests editable manuscript sources, a factual abstract, keywords, and a separate highlights file. It also covers authorship, funding, competing interests, AI-use disclosure, figures, supplements, research data, and permissions. Review each item against the live checklist and inspect the generated submission proof.
Submit through the current route linked from the JBV Guide for Authors or the journal's Editorial Manager site.
Required package audit
- Anonymous manuscript: remove author identities, acknowledgments, revealing self-citations, repository links, filenames, and metadata.
- Separate title page: include author details, affiliations, acknowledgments, and corresponding-author information.
- Highlights: supply the current separate editable highlights file and keep its promise consistent with the abstract.
- Data availability statement: link accessible material when possible or explain the ethical, legal, or contractual restriction.
- Funding statement and conflicts of interest: reconcile manuscript declarations and portal answers.
- Author contributions and AI-use disclosure: report them according to current Elsevier policy and the work actually performed.
- Supplementary material: cite every file and keep the central entrepreneurship mechanism visible in the manuscript.
The current guide sets a 250-word abstract and limits each required highlight to 85 characters. It states no single fixed main-text word limit or separate fixed figure limit for every research submission; verify the selected article route before relying on those absences.
Author tracking timeline, without a private review forecast
Elsevier's public route does not promise a case-specific duration for each JBV stage. Day 0 is the submission date; the later markers below are recordkeeping prompts, not targets.
- Day 0: upload through Editorial Manager, inspect the generated proof, and preserve the anonymous package.
- Day 1 onward: resolve a technical, disclosure, or file request without silently replacing the scientific record.
- Week 1 onward: wait for explicit editorial communication rather than treating a portal label or elapsed time as a decision.
- Later weeks: if external review begins, connect each response to the entrepreneurship mechanism, level of analysis, and evidence boundary.
When another entrepreneurship or management journal owns the paper better
Candidate path | Stronger match when | Why JBV may be wrong | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal | Strategy and entrepreneurship are inseparable in the central mechanism | The primary theoretical owner is competitive strategy | Compare the SEJ guide |
Academy of Management Journal | A broad empirical management contribution is stronger than the entrepreneurship mechanism | Founders or ventures function mainly as the sample | Compare the AMJ guide |
Research Policy | Innovation systems, science policy, or technological change owns the question | Entrepreneurship is one actor in a larger systems account | Compare the Research Policy guide |
Final JBV checklist
- Name the entrepreneurial phenomenon and explain why it changes the theory.
- Connect antecedent, action, mechanism, outcome, and context.
- Keep unit-of-analysis claims aligned with the data.
- Explain the design and identification in language the multidisciplinary audience can assess.
- Put the principal result and honest boundary in the abstract.
- Make the highlights concrete and consistent with the manuscript.
- Prepare a truthful data, code, and materials statement.
- Separate the title page and anonymized review file completely.
- Verify authorship, funding, conflicts, permissions, AI disclosure, supplements, and references.
- Recheck the live guide and inspect the converted proof.
Common questions
These answers help with the last package decisions, but the current JBV Guide for Authors and live Elsevier submission route control whenever a requirement changes.
What research fits JBV?
JBV welcomes multidisciplinary work that deepens understanding of the antecedents, mechanisms, or consequences of entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial phenomenon should drive the question and theory.
Is review double anonymized?
Yes. Current instructions call for a separate title page and an anonymized manuscript without identifying information. Check author names, acknowledgments, file properties, self-citations, filenames, and revealing repository links together.
What accompanies the abstract?
The current guide sets a 250-word abstract, requests 1 to 7 keywords, and requires 3 to 5 short highlights in a separate editable file. Confirm these details before upload.
What is the research-data expectation?
Deposit and link the data when possible, or explain why sharing is not possible. Use a truthful controlled or alternative audit route when public sharing would violate legitimate constraints.
What to read next
Compare the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal submission guide, The Leadership Quarterly submission guide, Academy of Management Journal submission guide, and Research Policy submission guide. Browse the journal guide library for another owner, or use a free manuscript readiness scan to test entrepreneurship ownership, mechanism, evidence, and package continuity.
Official sources accessed 2026-08-19.
- Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier.
- JBV Guide for Authors, Elsevier.
- JBV Editorial Manager, Elsevier submission system.
- Elsevier research-data guidelines, Elsevier.
Submit If
Submit when entrepreneurship owns the question, the mechanism survives scrutiny across levels, and the evidence and package make the contribution accessible and auditable.
Think Twice If
- Founders or startups are the sample, but the abstract's theory is generic.
- The methods and results move between person, team, venture, and ecosystem without evidence connecting them.
- A complex method produces a modest or hard-to-interpret entrepreneurial result.
- Practical advice is stronger than the design supports.
- The data statement promises access that ethical, legal, or contractual conditions prevent.
Frequently asked questions
JBV publishes multidisciplinary research that deepens understanding of the antecedents, mechanisms, or consequences of entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial phenomenon must own the question rather than serve as a setting for a generic management study.
Yes. The current guide asks for a separate title page with author details and an anonymized manuscript without identifying information.
The current guide sets a 250-word abstract, asks for 1 to 7 keywords, and requires a separate highlights file with 3 to 5 bullets of no more than 85 characters each. Recheck the live guide before submission.
The current guide identifies Elsevier data-policy Option C: deposit and link the data when possible, or provide a statement explaining why sharing is not possible. Ethical, legal, contractual, and privacy limits still apply.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Your manuscript is never used to train any model.