jbv-rebuttal

R&R Rebuttal (jbv-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You received a major-revision (R&R) decision from a JBV handling editor
• You have revised (or are planning to revise) and need the response letter
• Reviewers disagree, or a reviewer doubts the entrepreneurship contribution
• You are in a later round and must show cumulative progress

Revise first, then write the letter

Do not draft the response before the manuscript is actually revised — a response that promises changes not yet made reads as evasive to a developmental handling editor.

Prioritize the handling editor's concerns

Because the handling editor's letter sets the priorities at JBV:

1. Address the handling editor's make-or-break concerns first and most thoroughly, especially any "is the entrepreneurship contribution central and real?" worry.
2. Then resolve the integrative cross-cutting concern that unlocks several reviewer points.
3. Then the remaining reviewer points, grouped by theme.

Defend the phenomenon-driven contribution

JBV's bar is advancing theory about the entrepreneurial phenomenon. If a reviewer says "this could be any organization," do not just add startup vocabulary — show the mechanism is specifically entrepreneurial (uncertainty, novelty/liability of newness, opportunity, founding choice) and sharpen the contribution statement.

Handle the recurring empirical objections

• Selection into founding / survivorship: add a selection model, bounds, an alternative frame including failed ventures, or a robustness sample; report what changes.
• Identification/endogeneity: add IV/DiD/matching or a design-based check, and state the identifying assumption plainly.
• Generalizability of a novel dataset: document the frame and add external corroboration where possible.

Write a disciplined point-by-point response

• Reproduce each comment verbatim, then respond directly beneath it.
• Quote the new manuscript text and give the page/line so the editor can verify quickly.
• Be respectful and concede where the reviewer is right; where you disagree, give evidence, not assertion.
• Summarize the major changes in an opening cover note to the handling editor.
• Maintain anonymity in any shared materials across rounds.

Checklist

• Manuscript revised before the letter is written
• Field editor's priority concerns addressed first and fully
• Entrepreneurship contribution defended/strengthened, not just relabeled
• Selection/survivorship/identification objections answered with new analysis
• Every comment reproduced and answered with page/line pointers
• Disagreements supported by evidence; concessions made where due
• Cover note summarizes major changes for the handling editor

Recurring R&R objections and the response that lands

Objection in the letter	A response that satisfies a JBV handling editor
"Entrepreneurship feels incidental here."	Add an analysis turning on a venture primitive (moderation by uncertainty/novelty) and rewrite the contribution around it — not just startup vocabulary.
"Founder choices are endogenous."	Add a selection model or design check, report how the estimate moves, concede if it attenuates while explaining residual meaning.
"Survivor sample undercuts the antecedent claim."	Re-estimate on a failed-inclusive frame or report bounds; state what survivor-only over- or under-stated.
"Reviewers disagree with each other."	Adjudicate in the cover note: which path you took, why it serves the contribution, and the road not taken.

Worked micro-example: one response entry (illustrative)

A reviewer writes: "Team prior-experience on funding is just human capital — nothing entrepreneurial."

• Revise first: add a moderation showing the effect is amplified under high environmental uncertainty — the regime where entrepreneurial judgment, not generic human capital, should dominate. (Illustrative) interaction = 0.21, p < .05.
• Then write: reproduce the comment verbatim, then "We agree the main effect alone is consistent with a human-capital reading. We now show (Table 4, p. 27) the effect more than doubles under high uncertainty, which a human-capital account does not predict but an entrepreneurial-judgment account does."
• Concede where due: the low-uncertainty estimate is small and non-significant, so bound the claim to uncertain regimes — a concession that builds credibility with a developmental editor.

Calibration anchors (hedged)

• A JBV revision is judged on whether the entrepreneurship contribution got sharper, not the count of comments dispatched. Lead the cover note with that movement.
• The developmental culture rewards candor: a reasoned partial pushback with evidence beats over-claiming a fix.
• Resubmission mechanics (file types, where the response attaches) can change between rounds; confirm against the journal's current author guidelines.

Output format

【Round】1 / 2 / ... ; decision = major R&R ...
【Field-editor priorities addressed】...
【Entrepreneurship contribution】how strengthened ...
【Selection/survivorship/identification】new analyses ...
【Point-by-point status】addressed / partially / pushed back (with evidence) ...
【Cover note】major-changes summary drafted? ...
【Next step】resubmit via Editorial Manager