jbv-contribution-framing

name	jbv-contribution-framing
description	Use when turning results or a theory into an explicit contribution for the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) — stating what new theory of the entrepreneurial phenomenon the paper delivers, its boundary conditions, and its multidisciplinary reach. Frames the claim; it does not build the mechanism (jbv-theory-development) or polish the prose (jbv-writing-style).

Contribution Framing (jbv-contribution-framing)

When to trigger

• Results exist but the "so what for entrepreneurship theory" is thin or implicit
• A reviewer or handling editor calls the contribution "incremental" or "a setting, not a contribution"
• You cannot state in one sentence what the field now knows about entrepreneurship that it did not
• You need to write the contribution paragraph of the intro and the theoretical-implications section

The JBV contribution bar

JBV is a discipline-defining FT50 flagship, so the theory bar is high: the paper must clarify assumptions, expose tensions, or challenge orthodoxies about the entrepreneurial phenomenon. State the contribution explicitly — it cannot be left implicit.

• Phenomenon-centered: the contribution must be to understanding entrepreneurship — venture creation, entrepreneurial cognition/behavior, financing, teams, social/sustainable/international entrepreneurship, or ecosystems — not a generic organizational insight that merely used a startup sample.
• What changes: name the assumption you overturn, the tension you resolve, or the new mechanism you reveal in the entrepreneurial process.
• Multidisciplinary reach: because JBV spans economics, psychology, and sociology, articulate which conversation(s) the contribution advances and whether it travels across lenses.

Match the contribution to your mode

• Hypothesis-testing paper: the contribution is the validated (or surprising) mechanism plus its boundary conditions; say what the confirmed/disconfirmed prediction teaches about entrepreneurship.
• Narrative/interpretive paper: JBV values "theories, narratives, and interpretations," so the contribution can be a reconceptualization or process theory — state the new way of seeing the phenomenon and why it is more useful.

Build the contribution statement

1. Before: what the entrepreneurship field assumed or failed to explain.
2. Move: the specific theoretical move (new mechanism, boundary, reconception, integration of lenses).
3. After: what we now understand about the entrepreneurial phenomenon.
4. Boundary conditions: where the claim holds (stage, context, venture type, ecosystem).
5. Implications: for entrepreneurship theory first; practice (founders, investors, policy) second.

Checklist

• One-sentence claim of new entrepreneurship knowledge is explicit
• Contribution is to the phenomenon, not a generic org insight on a startup sample
• An assumption is challenged / tension resolved / orthodoxy questioned
• Boundary conditions stated
• Conversation(s) advanced named; cross-lens reach noted if any
• Practical relevance to founders/investors/policy articulated, but secondary to theory

Anti-patterns

• "First to study X in startups" dressed up as a contribution.
• Confirmation-only — replicating a known effect in a new venture sample.
• Setting, not contribution — the insight would hold for any organization.
• Implicit contribution — the reader must infer the "so what."

Contribution pass for Journal of Business Venturing

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the entrepreneurial mechanism, level of analysis, evidence design, and boundary conditions for ventures; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: entrepreneurship reviewers who ask whether the paper advances venture formation, opportunity, founder, or ecosystem theory.

• Do the pass: Translate the result into who learns what, which mechanism changes, and which alternative explanation is ruled out; keep the contribution narrower than the evidence.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice for broader entrepreneurship, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal for strategy interface, AMJ for general management; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【New knowledge】one sentence: what entrepreneurship now knows ...
【Before→move→after】...
【Assumption/orthodoxy challenged】...
【Boundary conditions】stage / context / venture type ...
【Conversations advanced】econ / psych / sociology ...
【Practical relevance】founders / investors / policy ...
【Next step】jbv-tables-figures or jbv-writing-style