Research Policy Skills

Use when research design, identification, or measurement is the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — choosing and defending a method (patent/bibliometric, causal policy evaluation, survey, case study, or mixed) appropriate to an innovation-studies claim. Sets the design; it does not execute the estimation/coding (respol-data-analysis).

Use when drafting the response to a Research Policy (RP) decision letter — converting double-blind referee and handling-editor comments into a point-by-point response and a revision plan that protects the innovation-studies contribution. Builds the response strategy; it is the terminal skill in the pack.

Use when deciding which respol-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for a Research Policy (RP) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Research Policy (RP) via Elsevier's online submission system — article-type choice, length/abstract limits, double-blind anonymization, data & code statement, and the out-of-scope desk-screen. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when executing and stress-testing the empirical analysis for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — building bibliometric/patent variables, running estimation or qualitative coding, and assembling robustness that an innovation-studies referee will accept. Executes the analysis; it does not choose the design (respol-methods) or present exhibits (respol-tables-figures).

Use when prose and structure are the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — making an interdisciplinary innovation-studies argument land for economists, management scholars, and policymakers at once. Polishes the writing; it does not change the contribution (respol-contribution-framing) or run the submission preflight (respol-submission).

Use when calibrating expectations and choreography for the Research Policy (RP) review cycle — the double-blind process, the out-of-scope desk screen, handling-editor routing, the Research Note option, and what RP referees reward versus reject. Sets expectations; it does not draft the response letter (respol-rebuttal).

Use when exhibits are the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — designing tables and figures (regression tables, patent/bibliometric maps, event-study plots, case data structures) that carry the innovation mechanism for an interdisciplinary readership. Builds exhibits; it does not run the analysis (respol-data-analysis) or write prose (respol-writing-style).

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).

Use when the conceptual argument is the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — building an innovation-studies mechanism or framework that an interdisciplinary readership will accept as a contribution. Builds the theory; it does not run the analysis (respol-data-analysis) or write the final contribution paragraph (respol-contribution-framing).

Use when the one-sentence "so what" is the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — converting solid results into an explicit advance for innovation theory/evidence that usually carries a policy or managerial implication. Frames the claim; it does not build the mechanism (respol-theory-development) or polish prose (respol-writing-style).

Use when staking the contribution against the innovation-studies literature for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — anchoring in the RP/SPRU canon and showing a genuine gap rather than an incremental replication. Positions the paper; it does not build the mechanism (respol-theory-development) or write the closing claim (respol-contribution-framing).