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 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

【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