---
name: respol-topic-selection
description: Use when scoping or sanity-checking the research question for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — deciding whether it is a genuine innovation-studies question RP owns versus an economics/strategy paper that will desk-reject as out of scope. Frames the question; it does not build the theory (respol-theory-development) or stake the gap (respol-literature-positioning).
---

# Topic Selection (respol-topic-selection)

## When to trigger

- You are unsure whether the question belongs in RP or in an economics/management outlet
- The paper studies a phenomenon (firms, R&D, patents) but the *innovation-studies* angle is implicit
- A coauthor asks "is this Research Policy, or is this SMJ / ICC / Technovation?"
- The literature you cite is "almost entirely economics journals or management journals" — RP's classic out-of-scope tell
- The contribution is empirical and clean but has no innovation-theory or STI-policy payoff

## What makes a question a Research Policy question

RP publishes work on the **emergence, diffusion, and governance of innovation and technological change**, read through an innovation-systems lens. A submittable question almost always (a) concerns an object RP owns — R&D, technological change, innovation systems (national/regional/sectoral/technological), science and STI policy, entrepreneurship and technology management, university-industry links, or IP — and (b) advances **understanding of how innovation happens or how to govern it**, usually carrying a policy or managerial implication. The SPRU/Freeman-Nelson-Pavitt heritage matters: RP rewards questions about *systems and institutions of innovation*, not just firm-level performance.

The decisive test is the **so-what audience**: an innovation-studies scholar (or a science/technology policymaker) must care, and your framing must speak to them — not only to labor economists or strategy researchers who happen to share your dataset.

## Branch test: is this RP, or a sibling?

| If your core claim is about… | And your audience is… | Likely home |
|------------------------------|------------------------|-------------|
| How an innovation/STI policy or institution shapes technological change | innovation-studies + policy | **Research Policy** |
| How firms organize R&D, search, recombination to innovate (systems/sector view) | innovation studies | **Research Policy** |
| A firm's competitive advantage / performance from a resource or strategy lens | strategy scholars | SMJ |
| Industrial dynamics, capabilities, evolutionary economics (firm-centric) | I-O / evolutionary econ | Industrial and Corporate Change |
| Managing a specific technology/innovation in practice | technology managers | Technovation |
| New-product development process and outcomes | NPD / marketing | JPIM |
| A clean causal estimate with no innovation-theory payoff | applied economists | a field economics journal |

If two cells fit, write the framing so the innovation-systems / STI-policy reading is the primary one; RP referees punish papers that "could be anywhere."

## Sharpening moves

1. State the question in one sentence as *"How does [innovation phenomenon/policy] affect [innovation outcome], and why does it matter for innovation theory and policy?"*
2. Name the innovation-studies conversation it joins (e.g., absorptive capacity, sectoral systems, mission-oriented policy, science-technology linkage) — not the econometrics conversation.
3. Identify the policy or managerial decision your answer would inform; if none exists, the topic is likely better placed elsewhere.
4. Check the literature base: if your reference list has no RP / innovation-studies anchors, that is the out-of-scope risk made visible — fix the question or the outlet, not just the citations.

## Checklist

- [ ] The question names an innovation/STI object RP owns, not just a generic firm/market outcome
- [ ] An innovation-studies scholar and a science/technology policymaker would both see why it matters
- [ ] The framing reads as innovation studies first, economics/strategy second
- [ ] The reference base is anchored in the RP/innovation-studies canon, not only econ/management journals
- [ ] The sibling boundary (SMJ / ICC / Technovation / JPIM) is consciously chosen, not accidental
- [ ] Current process facts cited are in `resources/official-source-map.md` or marked 待核实

## Anti-patterns

- An economics/strategy paper "re-skinned" with the word *innovation* in the abstract — referees see through it
- A literature review built only from economics or management journals (out-of-scope desk reject)
- A clean estimate with no STI-policy or innovation-theory payoff ("nice result, wrong journal")
- Treating RP as a high-impact outlet of convenience rather than an innovation-studies community
- Inventing exemplar papers, editors, fees, or limits instead of marking 待核实

## Output format

```text
【Journal】Research Policy
【Skill】respol-topic-selection
【One-sentence question】innovation phenomenon → innovation outcome → why it matters
【Innovation-studies conversation】the named RP/STI debate it joins
【Policy/managerial payoff】the decision the answer informs
【Sibling boundary】why RP and not SMJ / ICC / Technovation / JPIM
【Out-of-scope risk】is the lit base econ/management-only? [Y/N + fix]
【Verdict】pass / revise / reroute
【Next skill】respol-theory-development
```