Routes manuscript workflow decisions for Research Policy submissions, directing to specialized respol-* skills for topic selection, theory, methods, and more.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/research-policy-skills:respol-workflowThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
This is the router. It names **which respol-* skill to use at the current stage** of a manuscript aimed at *Research Policy* (RP) — Elsevier's flagship journal of **innovation studies** and science, technology & innovation (STI) policy. RP's center of gravity is the economics, management, and sociology of innovation: R&D and technological change, national/regional/sectoral innovation systems, s...
This is the router. It names which respol- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Research Policy (RP) — Elsevier's flagship journal of innovation studies and science, technology & innovation (STI) policy. RP's center of gravity is the economics, management, and sociology of innovation: R&D and technological change, national/regional/sectoral innovation systems, science and technology policy, entrepreneurship and technology management, university-industry links, and intellectual property. It is deeply interdisciplinary and carries the SPRU/Freeman-Nelson-Pavitt heritage; a paper earns space by advancing innovation-studies understanding, usually with a policy or managerial implication.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as RP. Operational tells that you are at RP and not a sibling: the contribution is to innovation theory or evidence, not to a generic strategy or economics conversation; methods are pluralist (econometrics, bibliometrics/patent analysis, surveys, case studies, mixed methods) and no single technique is privileged; review is double-blind; the desk-screen rejects papers whose literature is "almost entirely economics or management journals" as out of scope (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). Article types include full articles (~8,000–10,000 words incl. notes/refs/tables) and shorter Research Notes (~3,000–5,000 words) — verify on the guide for authors.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Scope/audience/outlet fit uncertain; risk of "out of scope" desk reject | respol-topic-selection |
| The innovation-studies conceptual contribution is thin or borrowed | respol-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. the innovation-studies frontier is fuzzy or mis-cited | respol-literature-positioning |
| Identification / measurement / design (patent, survey, case, mixed) is shaky | respol-methods |
| Estimation, bibliometric construction, coding, or robustness needs work | respol-data-analysis |
| The one-sentence "so what for innovation studies + policy" does not land | respol-contribution-framing |
| Exhibits are dense or do not carry the mechanism | respol-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the idea; intro/abstract miss the RP voice | respol-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need a preflight + data/code statement | respol-submission |
| Want referee timeline / desk-reject odds / Research Note option | respol-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | respol-rebuttal |
respol-topic-selection — lock an innovation-studies question RP ownsrespol-theory-development — build the mechanism / conceptual framerespol-literature-positioning — stake the gap against the RP/SPRU canonrespol-methods — design and measurement appropriate to the claimrespol-data-analysis — estimation / bibliometric build / coding + robustnessrespol-contribution-framing — sharpen the "so what + policy/managerial" claimrespol-tables-figures — exhibits that carry the mechanismrespol-writing-style — make the idea land (intro/abstract last)respol-submission — Editorial Manager preflight + data/code statementrespol-review-process — calibrate expectations; consider Research Noterespol-rebuttal — after the R&R
respol-writing-styleis a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before theory, design, and evidence settle.
RP spans several research traditions, and the binding constraint differs by tradition. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| Patent / bibliometric quantitative | construct validity of the indicator + endogeneity | respol-methods → respol-data-analysis |
| Policy-evaluation / causal (R&D subsidy, mission programs) | identification (DID/IV/RDD) + policy-invariance of mechanism | respol-methods |
| Survey on innovation behavior (firm/CIS-style) | measurement, common-method bias, generalizability | respol-methods → respol-data-analysis |
| Qualitative / case study of an innovation system | theoretical generalization + boundary conditions | respol-theory-development |
| Mixed-methods (cases + patents/survey) | integration logic, not two papers stapled together | respol-theory-development → respol-methods |
| Conceptual / typology of innovation systems | novelty vs. the SPRU canon; falsifiability | respol-literature-positioning |
A user says: "My patent-based paper on regional knowledge spillovers estimates fine, but a referee says the citation measure is endogenous and that the paper reads like an economics-of-geography paper, not innovation studies." That is two distinct RP pushbacks — an indicator/identification problem owned by respol-methods and respol-data-analysis, and a positioning/scope problem owned by respol-literature-positioning. Route to methods first to defend the patent-citation measure (e.g., self-citation correction, examiner vs. applicant citations), then to positioning to re-anchor the contribution in the innovation-systems literature so it reads as RP, not JEG.
respol-topic-selection and submitting a paper whose lit base is "all econ/management" — the classic out-of-scope desk rejectif decision_letter_arrived: -> respol-rebuttal
elif ready_to_submit: -> respol-submission
elif exhibits_unclear: -> respol-tables-figures
elif claim_or_so_what_fuzzy: -> respol-contribution-framing
elif estimation_or_indicator: -> respol-data-analysis
elif design_or_measurement_shaky: -> respol-methods
elif theory_thin: -> respol-theory-development
elif positioning_or_scope_fuzzy: -> respol-literature-positioning / respol-topic-selection
else: -> respol-topic-selection
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin research-policy-skillsSets expectations for Research Policy's review cycle: double-blind process, desk screen criteria, handling-editor routing, Research Note option, and what referees reward versus reject. Use before or after submission, desk reject, or decision letter.
Evaluates whether a manuscript fits Research Policy, covering scope, method/evidence bar, and desk-reject risks for innovation-studies and STI-policy papers.
Routes manuscript workflow for AEJ: Economic Policy from topic selection through rebuttal. Diagnoses bottlenecks and selects the appropriate sub-skill for identification, writing, or revision.