Jbv methods
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Journal-of-Business-Venturing-Skills/skills/jbv-methods
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jbv-methodsAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when designing or defending the research design for a Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) manuscript — matching a methodologically pluralistic but theory-first approach (venture panels, experiments, qualitative process work, mixed methods) to an entrepreneurial question, and handling selection, survival, and novel-dataset issues. Designs the study; it does not estimate it (jbv-data-analysis) or frame the contribution (jbv-contribution-framing).
SKILL.md
8.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Methods & Research Design (jbv-methods)
When to trigger
- You are choosing a design and unsure which fits a venture-creation question
- The design may not let you observe the entrepreneurial process you theorize
- A reviewer flags selection into entrepreneurship, survivorship bias, or sample novelty
- You are weighing qualitative process work, experiments, archival venture panels, or mixed methods
JBV is methodologically pluralistic — but theory-first
JBV prizes a clear, substantive theoretical contribution to entrepreneurship over any single method. Well-executed qualitative, conceptual, quantitative, and mixed-method studies are equally welcomed; the unifying demand is that the work advance theory about the entrepreneurial phenomenon, not merely apply a method. Choose the design that can actually test or build your theory:
| Entrepreneurial question / claim | Fitting design |
|---|---|
| Process of how ventures emerge / sensemaking | Inductive qualitative (Gioia, process), longitudinal case studies |
| Entrepreneurial judgment / cognition under uncertainty | Experiments, conjoint/policy-capturing, vignettes (Prolific/lab) |
| Antecedents/consequences across many ventures | Archival venture panels (Crunchbase, PitchBook, GEM, KFS, PSED) |
| Founding choice, exit, IPO, failure | Survival/event-history; selection models |
| Financing signals (VC, crowdfunding) | Field/natural experiments, panel with funding events |
| Theory-building plus generalization | Mixed methods (qual to build, quant to test) |
Design issues specific to the entrepreneurial setting
- Selection into entrepreneurship: founders self-select; model the choice (Heckman/Roy) or use design-based identification rather than ignoring it.
- Survivorship: new-venture samples lose failed ventures fast; a sample of survivors silently conditions on success. Design to observe pre-founding and failed ventures (PSED-style nascent panels, registry data).
- Novel datasets: JBV values new entrepreneurship data; document construction, coverage, and the sampling frame transparently — novelty is an asset only if the frame is defensible.
- Temporal precedence: to claim antecedents/mechanisms, the design must order them in time (longitudinal, pre/post a shock, staged measurement).
Co-submission of method artifacts
The Editorial Manager workflow lets you attach a MethodsX article (detailed protocol) or Data in Brief descriptor on the "Attach files" page — useful for novel measures, hand-coded datasets, or experimental protocols.
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
For the empirical / causal lane, estimate and audit rather than only specify. Full
map: execution-with-mcp. JBV studies founders and ventures where selection / survivorship threatens every claim; lead with identification and selection-correction tooling.
detect_design→recommend→ fit withas_handle=true→audit_resultto enumerate the checks the design owes.- Panel / staggered DiD:
callaway_santanna/sun_abraham+bacon_decompositionhonest_did_from_result. IV:effective_f_test+anderson_rubin_ci. RDD:rdrobust+mccrary_test.
- Experiments: randomization-based inference and
romano_wolffor the many-outcome family-wise correction reviewers expect.
Match the toolchain to the reviewer pool, and report the effect size the venue wants. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the JF execution walkthrough.
Checklist
- Design can actually observe/test the theorized entrepreneurial mechanism
- Selection into founding addressed (modeled or design-based)
- Survivorship/attrition handled in the sampling frame, not just statistically later
- Novel dataset's construction, coverage, and frame documented
- Temporal precedence supports the antecedent/mechanism claim
- Qual studies: trustworthiness plan (data structure, audit trail, quotations)
- Considered MethodsX / Data in Brief co-submission for protocols/data
Design referee-pushback patterns and the JBV-specific fix
| Pushback at the design stage | JBV-specific fix |
|---|---|
| "Cross-sectional, yet you theorize a venturing process." | Re-design with staged measurement or a pre/post shock; a single wave cannot carry a process claim. |
| "The construct is general-management ability relabeled." | Anchor the manipulation/measure to a venture primitive and show discriminant validity from it. |
| "Your sample is whoever survived to be observed." | Push the frame upstream to nascent/registry data capturing pre-founding and failed ventures. |
| "A novel hand-coded dataset — why trust the frame?" | Document construction, inter-coder reliability, and coverage; consider a MethodsX/Data in Brief co-submission. |
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
A hypothetical JBV study claims perceived environmental uncertainty causes founders to evaluate ambiguous opportunities more favorably. Design reasoning:
- Why an experiment: the claim is causal and about entrepreneurial judgment, so a vignette experiment (240 founders, illustrative) manipulates uncertainty while holding the opportunity fixed — isolating the targeted cognition.
- Construct guard: the vignette describes a new-venture opportunity under Knightian uncertainty, not a generic managerial decision, so a referee cannot recast it as ordinary risk-taking.
- Triangulation: pair it with an archival panel where a plausibly exogenous uncertainty shock shifts real founding/financing — answering "lab artificiality" by design.
- Temporal precedence: in the archival arm, measure uncertainty before the founding outcome so the antecedent claim is ordered in time.
Calibration anchors (hedged)
- JBV is method-pluralist: a deep inductive study and a clean field experiment clear the same bar if both advance entrepreneurship theory. The dividing line is theory payoff, not method prestige.
- The desk-reject-adjacent failure is the survivor-only, single-wave, generic-construct combination; design against all three up front.
- Artifact options (MethodsX, Data in Brief) can change; confirm against the journal's current author guidelines.
Anti-patterns
- Method-led, theory-light — a clean identification with no entrepreneurship-theory payoff.
- Survivor-only sample treated as representative of venture creation.
- Cross-sectional self-report used to claim a dynamic entrepreneurial process.
- Convenience startup sample with an undocumented frame.
Output format
【Question→design fit】design chosen + why it fits the entrepreneurial claim ...
【Selection】founding-choice strategy ...
【Survivorship/attrition】sampling-frame handling ...
【Data novelty】construction + coverage + frame ...
【Temporal precedence】how ordered in time ...
【Artifacts】MethodsX / Data in Brief? ...
【Next step】jbv-data-analysis