Research Policy

---
name: research-policy
description: Use when targeting Research Policy or deciding whether an innovation-studies / science-technology-policy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Research Policy (research-policy)

## Journal positioning

Research Policy, published by Elsevier, is the flagship journal of innovation studies — the interdisciplinary field studying the production, diffusion, and exploitation of science, technology, and innovation, and the policies and institutions that shape them. It draws on economics, management, sociology, geography, and political science, but it is not a pure management journal: the unit of interest is innovation and the systems, organizations, and policies around it. Research Policy rewards a clear contribution to innovation studies grounded in strong evidence or rigorous conceptual work, with relevance to science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy. The audience is innovation scholars across disciplines, so a paper must speak to the innovation conversation, not a narrow firm-strategy or general-management debate.

This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the Elsevier / Research Policy site and the submission system.

## When to trigger

- The author names Research Policy (or the innovation-studies / STI-policy field) as the venue.
- A paper studies R&D, technological change, innovation systems, science policy, IP, or the organization and economics of innovation.
- A management or economics paper about innovation needs an interdisciplinary, policy-aware home.
- The author needs Research Policy's desk-reject risks and a credible `strategic-management-journal` / `organization-science` / `journal-of-international-business-studies` alternative list.

## Scope & topic fit

- R&D, technological change, and the management and economics of innovation; patents, IP, and appropriability.
- Systems of innovation (national, regional, sectoral), science policy, university–industry links, and the organization of science.
- Innovation strategy, entrepreneurship in innovation, technology adoption and diffusion, and the geography of innovation.
- Interdisciplinary STI questions with implications for policy and practice.

## Method & evidence bar

- A clear contribution to innovation studies is required; the paper must advance how the field understands innovation, not just report a result.
- Methodological pluralism with rigor — econometric/quantitative work needs sound identification and measurement (patents, R&D, citation data handled carefully); qualitative and case work needs transparent analysis; conceptual/synthesis work must be genuinely novel.
- Innovation-specific measurement (patents, bibliometrics, R&D inputs/outputs) must be used thoughtfully, with known limitations addressed.
- Policy relevance is valued but must rest on credible evidence, not advocacy.

## Structure & house style

- The front end frames an innovation-studies problem and positions it across the relevant disciplines and the STI-policy debate.
- A strong Research Policy paper states its contribution to innovation studies and draws out grounded policy or managerial implications.
- Empirical work documents data sources and measurement carefully; exhibits make the innovation phenomenon legible.
- House style rewards rigorous, interdisciplinary, policy-aware scholarship.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Research Policy submission guidelines / Elsevier guide for authors" and follow the current version.
- Re-check word/length limits, abstract format, anonymization for double-blind review, reference style, and data/code availability expectations.
- Re-check current open-science, data-availability, and AI-use disclosure policies, and any article-type rules (full paper, review, discussion).
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] One sentence stating the contribution to innovation studies and its STI-policy relevance.
- [ ] The method (econometric, qualitative, or conceptual) is rigorous and fit to the innovation question.
- [ ] Innovation measures (patents/bibliometrics/R&D) are used carefully with limitations addressed.
- [ ] The paper engages the interdisciplinary innovation conversation, not just a firm-strategy debate.
- [ ] Framing, references, and anonymization match the current Research Policy guide.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A general firm-strategy or management paper with innovation as mere context and no innovation-studies contribution.
- Patent/bibliometric analysis with no theoretical contribution or naive measurement.
- Policy advocacy unsupported by credible evidence.
- A narrow disciplinary study that does not speak to the interdisciplinary innovation field.

## Re-routing decision

- Innovation strategy with a firm-performance core → `strategic-management-journal`; innovation as organization theory → `organization-science`.
- Cross-border / global innovation where the international dimension is central → `journal-of-international-business-studies`.
- Theory-driven management empirics → `academy-of-management-journal`; pure theory → `academy-of-management-review`; review → `academy-of-management-annals`.
- Innovation-driven new ventures / entrepreneurship → `journal-of-business-venturing` or `entrepreneurship-theory-and-practice`; broad management empirics → `journal-of-management-en`; European theory-method → `journal-of-management-studies` or `organization-studies`.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Research Policy
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is the innovation-studies contribution + rigor at Research Policy's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <submission system / length / references / data-code / article type>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```