Unveiling cogent insights: exploring the frontiers of entrepreneurship and innovation through relevant and rigorous research

Figures & data

Table 1. Recent best practice articles to ensure relevance and rigor.

Citation	Title
Anderson et al. (2019)	Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research
Grégoire et al. (2019)	Navigating the validity tradeoffs of entrepreneurship research experiments: A systematic review and best-practice suggestions
Maula and Stam (2020)	Enhancing rigor in quantitative entrepreneurship research
Aguinis et al. (2021)	Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors and authors
Bacq et al. (2021)	Writing bold, broad and rigorous review articles in entrepreneurship
Bendickson (2021)	Building entrepreneurship research for impact: Scope, phenomenon and translation
Liguori et al. (2021)	Publishing entrepreneurship research: Strategies for success distilled from a review of over 3500 submissions
Crawford et al. (2022)	Advancing entrepreneurship theory through replication: A case study on contemporary methodological challenges, future best practices and an entreaty for communality
Kraus et al. (2022)	Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice
Nikou et al. (2022)	FsQCA in entrepreneurship research: Opportunities and best practices
Aguinis et al. (2023)	Best-practice recommendations for producers, evaluators and users of methodological literature reviews
Burger et al. (2023)	On the use of AI-based tools like ChatGPT to support management research
Jensen et al. (2023)	Missing in action: Policy implications of management research

Anderson, B. S., Wennberg, K., & McMullen, J. S. (2019). Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(5), 105928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.02.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grégoire, D. A., Binder, J. K., & Rauch, A. (2019). Navigating the validity tradeoffs of entrepreneurship research experiments: A systematic review and best-practice suggestions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 284–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maula, M., & Stam, W. (2020). Enhancing rigor in quantitative entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(6), 1059–1090. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719891388

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aguinis, H., Hill, N. S., & Bailey, J. R. (2021). Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 678–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119836485

 Google Scholar

Bacq, S., Drover, W., & Kim, P. H. (2021). Writing bold, broad, and rigorous review articles in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(6), 106147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106147

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bendickson, J. (2021). Building entrepreneurship research for impact: Scope, phenomenon, and translation. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(4), 535–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1905822

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liguori, E. W., El Tarabishy, A., & Passerini, K. (2021). Publishing entrepreneurship research: Strategies for success distilled from a review of over 3,500 submissions. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1824530

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Crawford, G. C., Skorodziyevskiy, V., Frid, C. J., Nelson, T. E., Booyavi, Z., Hechavarria, D. M., Li, X., Reynolds, P. D., & Teymourian, E. (2022). Advancing entrepreneurship theory through replication: A case study on contemporary methodological challenges, future best practices, and an entreaty for communality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(3), 779–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211057422

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabić, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D., Mukherjee, D., Corvello, V., Piñeiro-Chousa, J., Liguori, E., Palacios-Marqués, D., Schiavone, F., Ferraris, A., Fernandes, C., & Ferreira, J. J. (2022). Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science, 16(8), 2577–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nikou, S., Mezei, J., Liguori, E. W., & El Tarabishy, A. (2022). FsQCA in entrepreneurship research: Opportunities and best practices. Journal of Small Business Management, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2147190

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2023). Best-practice recommendations for producers, evaluators, and users of methodological literature reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 46–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943281

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burger, B., Kanbach, D. K., Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Corvello, V. (2023). On the use of AI-based tools like ChatGPT to support management research. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(7), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2023-0156

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jensen, S. H., Kraus, S., & Aguinis, H. (2023). Missing in Action: Policy Implications of Management Research. The European Business Review, (January-February), 2–7.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

This work does not rely on any data. As such, there is no data to be made available.