Menu

Individual skill

respol-writing-style

0upvotes

Use when prose and structure are the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — making an interdisciplinary innovation-studies argument land for economists, management scholars, and policymakers at once. Polishes the writing; it does not change the contribution (respol-contribution-framing) or run the submission preflight (respol-submission).

Research-Policy-Skills/skills/respol-writing-style/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,411
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Writing Style (respol-writing-style)

## When to trigger

- The intro takes pages to reach the point; the contribution is hidden on page 4
- The prose is written for one discipline and opaque to the others RP serves
- The abstract lists topics ("this paper examines…") instead of stating findings
- Jargon from one tradition (econometrics, or STS, or strategy) is used without translation
- A referee says the paper is "hard to follow," "the argument doesn't flow," or "what is the point?"

## The Research Policy voice

RP prose must work for an **interdisciplinary innovation-studies readership** — an economist, a management scholar, and an STI policymaker should each be able to follow the argument. That means leading with the puzzle and the contribution, naming the innovation mechanism in plain terms before formalizing it, and translating any field-specific jargon. The house argument shape links **mechanisms, institutions, and technology evidence** into a claim about how innovation works or should be governed; writing that stops at "the coefficient is significant" reads as the wrong journal regardless of polish.
Back to top