/choose-journal

Choose a journal for publication

Help the author select a target journal for a paper. This is a strategic decision combining scholarly values, career constraints, and practical fit.

Input

The user describes (or you infer from context):

• The paper's topic, contribution, and methodology
• The target audience (who should read this?)
• Any constraints (budget, timeline, co-authors, language)

Procedure

1. Understand the contribution

Ask if unclear:

• What is the paper's main contribution? (empirical finding, methodology, dataset, theory, review)
• What discipline does it primarily speak to?
• What adjacent disciplines might value it?

2. Generate candidate venues (at least 8-10)

Search broadly — don't stop at the obvious top-3. Include:

• Core discipline journals (the paper's home field)
• Adjacent/interdisciplinary journals (where the paper also fits)
• Generalist venues (if the contribution has broad appeal)
• Diamond OA venues (always check — they exist in most fields)
• Special issue calls (time-sensitive but high acceptance rate for good fits)

For each candidate, research:

• Scope statement and recent articles (does this paper fit what they actually publish?)
• Open access model and APC (if any)
• Peer review type (single-blind, double-blind, open)
• Typical turnaround time
• Acceptance rate (if available)
• Indexing (Scopus, WOS, DOAJ, ERIH PLUS)

3. Filter by author's values and constraints

Apply these filters in order:

1. Peer-reviewed — non-negotiable
2. Scope fit — would the editor send this to reviewers, or desk-reject?
3. Open access model — diamond OA preferred; APC only if justified
4. Institutional list presence — check relevant evaluation lists (varies by country/institution)
5. Publisher reputation — avoid predatory publishers; check DOAJ, Beall's list
6. Practical fit — word limits, figure policies, language, formatting requirements

4. Present a ranked shortlist

Format as a comparison table with:

• Journal name, publisher
• APC (or "diamond OA")
• Scope fit (high/medium/low with one-line justification)
• Institutional list presence (if applicable)
• Key trade-off (what you gain/lose by choosing this venue)

Group by: diamond OA first, then low APC, then premium.

5. Recommend and explain

State your top recommendation with reasoning. Acknowledge the trade-offs explicitly. If there's a natural "safety" submission strategy (submit to A, if rejected resubmit to B), say so.

Anti-patterns

• Don't optimize for impact factor alone — it's one signal among many
• Don't assume the most prestigious venue is the best fit
• Don't ignore diamond OA — it exists in more fields than people think
• Don't recommend MDPI without flagging the reputational concerns in some academic cultures
• Don't forget to check if Couperin/institutional agreements cover the APC