Literature Positioning (jbv-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

Your introduction reads as "X is understudied in entrepreneurship" (gap-spotting)
Reviewers say you "ignore the canonical entrepreneurship conversation"
You cite only one discipline when the phenomenon spans several
You are unsure which scholarly conversation your paper actually joins

At an FT50 entrepreneurship flagship, "no one has studied this" is a weak motivation. Instead:

Problematize: surface and challenge an assumption the entrepreneurship field takes for granted (e.g., that opportunities are discovered vs. created, that VC signals quality, that more resources always help nascent ventures). Problematization beats gap-filling.
Name the conversation: state precisely which entrepreneurship debate you enter — opportunity discovery vs. creation, effectuation vs. causation, the role of failure and learning, financing signals, ecosystem effects — and what you add or overturn.
Engage multidisciplinarily: JBV is grounded in economics, psychology, and sociology. If your phenomenon spans lenses, cite across them; positioning only within one discipline when the puzzle is broader reads as thin to an editor who routes across domains.