Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› respol-literature-positioning
respol-literature-positioning
GitHub用于为Research Policy稿件定位文献贡献，锚定创新研究经典并确立知识缺口。适用于引用偏离、被指增量式或无法清晰表述贡献的场景。通过锚定RP体系、明确共识与张力，展示真实理论突破，避免数据缺口或纯经管视角。
Trigger Scenarios
参考文献多为经济/管理期刊，缺乏创新研究核心文献
审稿人指出贡献是增量式的或未在正确文献中定位
仅表面引用RP范例而未深入探讨其论点
无法用一句话概括RP读者观点的前后变化
将差距陈述为地域数据缺口而非知识缺口
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill respol-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "respol-literature-positioning",
"description": "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)."
}
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
- 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
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:19
