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: 3.12

Impact Factor Rankings

2016 Impact Factor Available summer 2017
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

Elsevier

  • 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: There are few widely acknowledged quality standards for research practice, and few definitions of what constitutes good research. The overall aim was therefore to describe what constitutes research, and then to use this description to develop a model of research practice and to define concepts related to its quality. The primary objective was to explore such a model and to create a multidisciplinary understanding of the generic dimensions of the quality of research practice. Eight concept modelling working seminars were conducted. A graphic representation of concepts and their relationships was developed to bridge the gap between different disciplines. A concept model of research as a phenomenon was created, which included a total of 18 defined concepts and their relationships. In a second phase four main areas were distilled, describing research practice in a multidisciplinary context: Credible, Contributory, Communicable, and Conforming. Each of these was further specified in a concept hierarchy together with a defined terminology. A comprehensive quality model including 32 concepts, based on the four main areas, was developed for describing quality issues of research practice, where the model of research as a phenomenon was used to define the quality concepts. The quality model may be used for further development of elements, weights and operationalizations related to the quality of research practice in different academic fields.
    No preview · Article · Apr 2016 · Research Policy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Failure to innovate has been only recently recognized as one of the key elements in determining successful firms' innovative performance. However, as this literature focuses only on the determinants of firms' failure, it neglects the role of failure in spurring innovative activity. In this paper, the relationship between innovative performance and failure to innovate is empirically tested, through a two step econometric model, on the 2008 CIS Innovation survey dataset. The main results of the paper are, first, that failure is negatively correlated to the firms' experience (proxies by R&D), and to the acquisition of direct external knowledge (through productive links in product and process innovation). Indirect learning from the failures of similar firms is moderated by firms engagement in R&D and in searching for external knowledge. The second step reveals that failure in turn has a positive impact on performance in term of percentage of turnover from new to the market innovative products. Finally, an additional test is performed on still ongoing innovation (rather than abandoned), and the results show a minor impact on innovation activity.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2016 · Research Policy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This extended editorial explores the growing range of stratagems devised by journal editors to boost their Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and the consequences for the credibility of this indicator as well as for the academic community more broadly. Over recent years, JIF has become the most prominent indicator of a journal's standing, bringing intense pressure on journal editors to do what they can to increase it. After explaining the curious way in which JIF is calculated and the technical limitations that beset it, we examine the approaches employed by journal editors to maximise it. Some approaches would seem completely acceptable, others (such as coercive citations and cross-citing journal cartels) are in clear breach of the conventions on academic behaviour, but a number fall somewhere in between. Over time, editors have devised ingenious ways of enhancing their JIF without apparently breaching any rules. In particular, the editorial describes the ‘online queue’ stratagem and asks whether this constitutes appropriate behaviour or not. The editorial draws three conclusions. First, in the light of ever more devious ruses of editors, the JIF indicator has now lost most of its credibility. Secondly, where the rules are unclear or absent, the only way of determining whether particular editorial behaviour is appropriate or not is to expose it to public scrutiny. Thirdly, editors who engage in dubious behaviour thereby risk forfeiting their authority to police misconduct among authors.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2016 · Research Policy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Policy makers view academic healthcare organisations as important to healthcare innovation because they act as boundary-spanning organisations that integrate science and care institutional logics. Institutional logics are implicit and socially shared rules of the game that prescribe behaviour within a social group. This paper explores how individuals affiliated with academic healthcare organisations negotiate science and care institutional logics within their day-to-day work through a qualitative case study of research and healthcare within academic healthcare organisations in Vancouver, Canada. It highlights that there is less hybridisation of institutional logics than policy makers might hope: some researchers hosted in academic healthcare organisations are not part of the care institutional logic, others are not well integrated with the research institutional logic. Clinician–scientists often struggle to integrate the science and care institutional logics in their day-to-day work; other workers do integrate science and care institutional logics through experiments of nature but their research may not be viewed as high quality science. Because of poor hybridisation, academic healthcare organisations may not be as effective in facilitating healthcare innovation as policy makers assume.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Research Policy