Research Policy Submission Guide

Source: Research Policy on Elsevier, SPRU at Sussex, Clarivate JCR 2024, accessed April 2026.

This is the Research Policy-specific structural detail authors most often miss:

The journal is editorially anchored by SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit) at the University of Sussex, one of the world's leading innovation-studies institutes. SPRU's intellectual tradition includes:

• Evolutionary innovation theory (Dosi, Nelson-Winter)

• Sectoral systems of innovation (Malerba, Pavitt)

• Science and innovation indicators (Pavitt-style firm taxonomies)

• Technology and society research

The strategic implication: Research Policy authors should understand and engage the SPRU intellectual tradition when framing the contribution. Pure-management-strategy work without innovation-studies grounding faces redirection.

Three operational signals govern editorial assessment:

1. Innovation-studies substance. The journal requires substantive innovation-studies or S&T-policy contribution. Pure-management-strategy or pure-economics work without innovation framing faces redirection.

2. SPRU intellectual engagement. The contribution should engage with established innovation-studies frameworks (sectoral systems, evolutionary theory, science indicators).

3. Methodological rigor. Quantitative-empirical, qualitative, or theoretical work must be top-tier.

Recent Research Policy issues span:

• AI and innovation

• Innovation in low-carbon and clean energy

• Mission-oriented innovation policy

• Open innovation and platform innovation

• Innovation in emerging economies

• University-industry collaboration

• Science indicators and bibliometrics

• Innovation and inequality

For specific recent papers and DOIs, see Research Policy on Elsevier. Representative recent papers:

• 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104789

• 10.1016/j.respol.2024.104923

• 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105056

• Initial decision: typically 4-8 weeks

• First decision after review: typically 8-14 months

• Revision rounds: typically 2-3 major revisions to acceptance

• Time to publication after acceptance: months (online first available)

This page handles the public submission rules; the draft still needs a journal-specific fit check. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Research Policy fit check before upload, especially around innovation-studies framing thin, wrong innovation venue chosen, and methodological execution doesn't clear top-tier bar. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

Innovation-studies framing thin

Pure-management-strategy or pure-economics work without innovation-studies grounding faces redirection. The fix is to engage SPRU traditions explicitly.

Check innovation studies framing thin before submitting to Research Policy →

Wrong innovation venue chosen

Research Policy competes with SMJ, ICC, Technovation, JPIM, and JTT. The fix is to read recent papers from each.

Check wrong innovation venue chosen before submitting to Research Policy →

Methodological execution doesn't clear top-tier bar

The fix is rigorous execution. A Research Policy manuscript readiness check can identify whether innovation-studies framing, SPRU engagement, and methodological rigor align before submission.

Check methodological execution doesn't clear top tier bar before submitting to Research Policy →

Research Policy requires these at first submission:

• main manuscript file in Elsevier format, fully blinded for double-anonymous peer review (author names removed; institutional affiliations removed; self-citations suppressed or written in third person; acknowledgements removed)

• separate title page with all authors, affiliations, ORCID iDs, and contact information (uploaded separately so reviewers do not see it)

• cover letter establishing the innovation-studies or science-and-technology-policy contribution and the engagement with SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit) intellectual traditions

• structured abstract per Elsevier convention

• author CRediT contribution statement (uploaded with the title page, not the anonymized manuscript)

• competing-interests declaration

• ethics statement (where applicable, including human-subjects research for qualitative or interview-based studies)

• data and code availability statements with deposit references (Harvard Dataverse, Mendeley Data, or institutional repository for empirical data; GitHub or Code Ocean for code)

• suggested reviewers with institutional affiliations and email addresses

• $3,700 USD APC for the gold open-access option (2026; subscription publication has no APC; many institutional Elsevier transformative agreements cover the fee)

• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process per Elsevier policy

• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript

For Research Policy submissions, the most common artifact-related issue is incomplete blinding that leaves author identity in self-citation patterns, acknowledgements references, or supplementary appendices linking back to author institutional websites. Research Policy's double-anonymous review depends on full blinding; submissions where editors can immediately identify the author team via supplementary materials face routine resubmission requests for proper anonymization before the manuscript enters review.

Run a Research Policy pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit to verify the package meets the journal's innovation-studies-with-SPRU-engagement bar and full anonymization standard.

Research Policy manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline shaped by the ~2,000-submissions-per-year volume. The editorial triage pattern at Elsevier innovation-studies journals favors submissions where the cover letter names a failure pattern in current innovation-studies practice that the manuscript addresses. Editors routinely reject pure-management-strategy or pure-economics submissions without SPRU-tradition grounding and consistently screen for cover letters that demonstrate awareness of the journal's recent editorial culture around innovation-studies methodological pluralism.

Day 0 to 7: Editorial Manager intake and editorial-office technical check

The platform performs format and blinding checks (separate title-page upload, declarations, ORCID linking, data and code availability statements). Editorial staff verify the cover letter, the blinding of the manuscript, and the structured abstract.

Day 7 to 30: Editor-in-Chief and Handling Editor desk-screen

The Editor-in-Chief routes the manuscript to a Handling Editor (matched to innovation systems, science policy, technology policy, entrepreneurship and innovation, university-industry interactions, R&D management, or innovation methodology). The Handling Editor desk-screen tests SPRU-tradition fit and the substantive innovation-studies contribution.

Week 5 to 20: External peer review (double-anonymous)

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers (the system invites 3; editors typically wait for the third review before deciding). Reviewer turnaround in innovation studies is slower than in laboratory life sciences; 12-16 week peer-review windows are typical.

Week 20 to 36: Decision and revision rounds

First decisions arrive at the 4-month median, typically as major revision (revise and resubmit). Revision cycles add 4-8 months each. Authors should not contact the Handling Editor before 5 months post-submission unless there is a particularly long delay.

• Is Research Policy a good journal?

• Strategic Management Journal Submission Guide

• Industrial and Corporate Change Submission Guide

Before the reviewer-invitation stage, read the Research Policy package against the same risks this guide flags in the Manusights section. The practical question is whether the abstract, cover letter, figures or tables, methods, reporting statements, supplementary files, and references all make the journal choice obvious.

• If the abstract still points toward innovation-studies framing thin, revise the central claim before upload.

• If the evidence package leaves wrong innovation venue chosen, strengthen the methods, controls, figures, or supplementary material rather than expecting reviewers to infer it.

• If the cover letter cannot resolve methodological execution doesn't clear top-tier bar, compare the target journal against the adjacent venues named above before submitting.

Last verified: April 2026 against Research Policy editorial pages.