Respol Literature Positioning

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

1. 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.
2. Name the prevailing belief. State the current consensus or dominant assumption in that conversation in one sentence.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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

Checklist

• 3–6 RP/innovation-studies anchors are engaged by argument, not just cited
• The prevailing belief is stated in one sentence before the gap
• The gap is a knowledge gap (a tension), not a data/geography gap
• What readers should believe differently after the paper is explicit
• Economics/strategy citations are present where earned but not dominant
• The contribution is distinguished from SMJ / ICC / Technovation / JPIM framings
• Process/source facts cited are verified or marked 待核实

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

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Research-Policy-Skills/skills/respol-literature-positioning/SKILL.md