Research Policy (RES POLICY)

Publisher: Elsevier

Journal description

Research and development (R&D) activities today absorb very considerable resources, and have great influence on the policies of industrial firms, government departments, universities and even whole nations. Research Policy is a multi-disciplinary journal devoted to the exploration of the policy problems posed by these R&D activities, and in particular their interaction with economic, social and political processes. Its papers are written by both academic observers and practitioners of the R&D process. It is deliberately international in scope and reaches an audience of academics, industrialists and government officials.Main Subjects Covered:Innovation, Company Strategy and Industrial Competition; Project Selection and R&D Management; National Policies towards Science and Technology; Social and Economic Effects of Science and Technology; Policies for Basic Research; International Cooperation; Developing Countries; Literature Surveys.

Current impact factor: 2.85

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2009 Impact Factor 2.261

Additional details

5-year impact 3.98
Cited half-life 8.80
Immediacy index 0.26
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 1.42
Website Research Policy website
Other titles Research policy (Online), RP
ISSN 0048-7333
OCLC 39166783
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details


  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Authors pre-print on any website, including arXiv and RePEC
    • Author's post-print on author's personal website immediately
    • Author's post-print on open access repository after an embargo period of between 12 months and 48 months
    • Permitted deposit due to Funding Body, Institutional and Governmental policy or mandate, may be required to comply with embargo periods of 12 months to 48 months
    • Author's post-print may be used to update arXiv and RepEC
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Must link to publisher version with DOI
    • Author's post-print must be released with a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License
    • Publisher last reviewed on 03/06/2015
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article examines the socio-political dynamics in the evolution and development of Flemish technology assessment (TA). Broadly defined, TA encompasses activities and programs that expand and deepen the knowledge base of contemporary knowledge-based economies (KBEs), typically by including new actors (e.g. trade unions), ideas (e.g. science in society), and rationales (e.g. participatory techniques) in science, technology, and innovation (STI) processes. Starting from the regionalization of STI policy in Belgium and the convergence of Flemish STI around global KBE principles, the article exemplifies how since the 1980s successive Flemish TA waves (early-warning, bottom-up, and interactive TA) have co-evolved with successive generations of Flemish innovation policy. Building on these findings, it argues that Flemish TA has counteracted and accommodated dominant STI paradigms. By providing a historical and socio-political perspective on TA and innovation policy, the article draws critical attention to the institutional settings and societal contexts in which TA is embedded, and questions TA's strategic utility within contemporary KBEs. This perspective sheds light on the Flemish government's recent decision to close its parliamentary TA institute and the institutional expansion of TA elsewhere in Europe.
    Research Policy 12/2015; 44(10):1877-1886. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.010
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Successful innovation depends on knowledge – technological, strategic and market related. In this paper we explore the role and interaction of firms’ existing knowledge stocks and current knowledge flows in shaping innovation success. The paper contributes to our understanding of the determinants of firms’ innovation outputs and provides new information on the relationship between knowledge stocks, as measured by patents, and innovation output indicators. Our analysis uses innovation panel data relating to plants’ internal knowledge creation, external knowledge search and innovation outputs. Firm-level patent data is matched with this plant-level innovation panel data to provide a measure of firms’ knowledge stock. Two substantive conclusions follow. First, existing knowledge stocks have weak negative rather than positive impacts on firms’ innovation outputs, reflecting potential core-rigidities or negative path dependencies rather than the accumulation of competitive advantages. Second, knowledge flows derived from internal investment and external search dominate the effect of existing knowledge stocks on innovation performance. Both results emphasize the importance of firms’ knowledge search strategies. Our results also re-emphasize the potential issues which arise when using patents as a measure of innovation.
    Research Policy 09/2015; 44(7). DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2015.03.003
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper illustrates a small extent of co-evolution of IPR regime and technological capability of Thai automotive firms. This study analysed the primary data on Thai IP-related law, regulation, firms’ R&D and innovation surveys, patent registration, court litigation, and conducted interviews for case studies of firms, policy makers, and university professors specialised in the automotive industry. The results show that there are some atmospheric changes in terms of increasing awareness of importance of patent after the regime became stronger. The stronger patent regime has slight impacts on the extent and nature of knowledge transfer between transnational corporations and local part suppliers. Last, the stronger patent regime has impacts on firms climbing up technological ladders from production to more sophisticated activities.
    Research Policy 09/2015; 44(7). DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper analyzes the persistency in innovation behavior of firms. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behavior of firms over a ten-year period, i.e., between 2002 and 2012. We distinguish between four types of innovations: process, product, marketing, and organizational innovations. First, using transition probability matrix, we found evidence of (unconditional) state dependence in all types of innovation, with product innovators having the strongest persistent behavior. Second, using a dynamic probit model, we found evidence of “true” state dependency among all types of innovations, except marketing innovators. Once again, the strongest persistency was found for product innovators.
    Research Policy 08/2015; 44(10):1887–1901. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We utilise conceptual frameworks from political science on agenda setting, policy entrepreneurship and the role of the European Commission to understand the emergence of a new research theme (security) under the Seventh Framework Programme. We open-up the “black box” of the European Commission and in so doing examine the controversies that emerged within the Commission as well as the critical role of mid-ranking officials in identifying and utilising a political window of opportunity provided by the 9/11 attacks on the United States. We emphasise ambiguity as a key feature in the complex process of framing and mobilisation and develop the idea of ambiguity as a multi-dimensional and dynamic phenomenon that changes its nature and function over the different stages of the agenda setting process. We argue that the understanding of science and technology policy making can benefit by applying this agenda setting approach and its emphasis on the origins of policy, the agenda setting process and the role of policy entrepreneurship.
    Research Policy 07/2015; 44(6). DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.008