Literature Positioning (respol-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The reference list is "almost entirely economics or management journals" — the RP out-of-scope tell
- A referee says the contribution is "incremental," "we already know this," or "not positioned in the right literature"
- The paper cites RP exemplars superficially but does not engage their arguments
- You cannot name in one sentence what RP readers believed before your paper and what they should believe after
- The gap is stated as "no one has studied X in country Y" (a data gap, not a knowledge gap)
The Research Policy positioning bar
RP referees are innovation-studies insiders. They expect the paper to be rooted in the innovation-studies conversation — RP itself, plus the foundational lineage (Freeman, Nelson & Winter, Pavitt, Dosi, Cohen & Levinthal, Lundvall, Malerba, and the journals around RP: ICC, Technovation, JPIM where genuinely relevant). A reference base drawn only from economics or strategy journals signals the wrong audience and is a documented desk-reject trigger (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Positioning is not a citation dump: it is an argument that there is a knowledge gap in how innovation works or is governed, and that this paper closes it.
The gap must be a knowledge gap, not a data gap. "First study of region Z" is rarely enough; "the dominant view assumes X, but mechanism Y implies the opposite, and we show which holds" is RP-grade.
Positioning moves
-
Anchor in the RP canon. Identify 3–6 RP / innovation-studies works your paper directly extends or contradicts, and engage their arguments, not just their existence.
-
Name the prevailing belief. State the current consensus or dominant assumption in that conversation in one sentence.
-
State the gap as tension. Show why the consensus is incomplete, contradicted, or untested for the conditions you study — ideally a tension between two innovation-studies positions your paper resolves.
-
Place the contribution. Say precisely what changes: a new mechanism, a boundary on a known one, contradicting evidence, or a measurement that resolves a debate.
-
Triage adjacent fields. Cite economics/strategy where it earns its place, but keep the innovation-studies literature in the foreground so the paper reads as RP.
Distinguishing the contribution from siblings
| Sibling literature |
How RP positioning differs |
| Strategy (SMJ) |
Frame around innovation/technology mechanisms and systems, not firm competitive advantage |
| Industrial and Corporate Change |
Foreground innovation/STI policy and knowledge production, not industrial-dynamics/capabilities theory per se |
| Technovation / JPIM |
Make a research contribution to innovation theory/evidence, not a managerial how-to or NPD-process study |
| Economics of innovation field journals |
Lead with the innovation-studies and policy implication, not the pure econometric contribution |
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A literature base with no RP/innovation-studies anchors (out-of-scope risk)
- "No one has studied this in country/sector X" presented as the contribution (data gap)
- Citing RP exemplars without engaging their actual claims
- A laundry-list review that never states the prevailing belief or the tension
- Letting the strategy or econometrics literature crowd out innovation studies
- Inventing exemplar papers or mis-attributing canonical arguments
Output format
【Journal】Research Policy
【Skill】respol-literature-positioning
【RP anchors engaged】3–6 works extended or contradicted
【Prevailing belief】one sentence
【Gap as tension】why the consensus is incomplete / contradicted / untested
【Contribution placement】new mechanism / boundary / contradicting evidence / resolving measurement
【Sibling framing avoided】not SMJ / ICC / Technovation / JPIM
【Verdict】pass / revise / reroute
【Next skill】respol-methods
