This skill should be used when the user asks to "where should I submit this paper", "find a venue for my paper", "which journal fits my paper", "evaluate publication venues", "conference or journal for this work", or needs to identify and evaluate publication venues. Considers scope, impact factor, review timeline, acceptance rate, and fit. Produces a ranked shortlist with submission strategy guidance.
From papermillnpx claudepluginhub queelius/claude-anvil --plugin papermillThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.
Migrates code, prompts, and API calls from Claude Sonnet 4.0/4.5 or Opus 4.1 to Opus 4.5, updating model strings on Anthropic, AWS, GCP, Azure platforms.
Configures VPN and dedicated connections like Direct Connect, ExpressRoute, Interconnect for secure on-premises to AWS, Azure, GCP, OCI hybrid networking.
Help the researcher identify the best publication venue for their paper. The right venue maximizes impact and minimizes wasted review cycles.
Read .papermill/state.md (Read tool) for:
If .papermill/state.md does not exist, venue selection can still proceed from the manuscript alone, but results will be stronger with thesis and prior-art context. Suggest running /papermill:init first for best results.
Read the manuscript (Read tool) to understand scope, length, and contribution type.
Use multiple signals to generate candidates:
Look at where the paper's key references are published. These venues are likely in scope.
Search for "best venues for [topic]" and check recent calls for papers (WebSearch tool).
For each candidate, assess:
| Factor | What to check |
|---|---|
| Scope | Does the paper's topic match the venue's published scope? |
| Impact | Impact factor, h-index, or community prestige |
| Acceptance rate | How selective is the venue? |
| Review timeline | Time from submission to decision (weeks to months) |
| Open access | Is it OA? Are there APC fees? |
| Page limits | Does the paper fit? |
| Formatting | What template/format is required? |
Present a ranked shortlist of 3-5 venues:
Venue Recommendations
Rank Venue Fit Impact Timeline Notes 1 ... High ... ... ... 2 ... Good ... ... ... 3 ... Good ... ... ...
For each recommended venue, explain:
Discuss strategy with the user:
There is no universally correct strategy. Help the user think through the trade-offs.
Update .papermill/state.md (Edit tool):
venue:
target: "Selected venue name"
candidates:
- name: "Venue 1"
fit: "high"
deadline: "YYYY-MM-DD or rolling"
- name: "Venue 2"
fit: "good"
deadline: "YYYY-MM-DD or rolling"
Append a timestamped note documenting the venue analysis.
If JOSS is recommended or selected, be aware that JOSS papers are not traditional manuscripts — they are 750-1750 word software descriptions in Markdown (paper.md) with rigid required sections. Papermill's writing tools (outline, proof, polish) are not designed for this format. Instead:
/pub-pipeline:joss-draft to draft the paper.md and paper.bib./pub-pipeline:joss-audit to verify repository and paper compliance.JOSS accepts software in any language (Python, R, Julia, C++, etc.) with obvious research application. It does not require the paper to present novel methodology — just that the software is useful for research. The JOSS paper describes the software; the research contribution lives in companion papers or the software's own documentation.
Venue selected. Next steps:
/papermill:polish: Prepare the paper for submission to the target venue.- Check formatting: Download the venue's template and verify compliance.
- Write cover letter: Some venues require a cover letter; draft one if needed.
- If JOSS was selected: Use
/pub-pipeline:joss-draftinstead of papermill for the paper itself.