%202.png)
Journal and Venue Selection
Choose where to submit on evidence of what a venue actually publishes, screen for predatory outlets, and build a submission ladder that prices the wait.
Free. Works on Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini or any assistant that accepts a skill file.
What this skill does
The method, encoded.
Most venue decisions are made at the end of a long project by an author who is tired of the paper, and they fail in two predictable ways. Prestige-led selection produces desk rejections for scope, which is by a wide margin the commonest reason a paper never reaches review. Convenience-led selection produces publication in outlets that do no real review, are not indexed where the field looks, and attach permanently to the author's record.
This skill replaces both with an hour of reading. It builds a candidate list from the paper's own reference list, which is empirical evidence about where this conversation is actually happening, then reads a year of each candidate's published content, because scope statements are marketing and content is record. It grades scope fit honestly, checks turnaround, selectivity and review model from evidence rather than estimate, and works out what an access route costs, who pays it, and whether the licence and embargo actually satisfy the author's mandate.
It then screens every unfamiliar venue on ten checkable signals: indexing claims verified at the index, board members verified at their own institutions, fee transparency, solicitation patterns, implausible turnaround, untraceable metrics, and the published content itself. It is honest that the boundary is not clean, and treats the signals as cumulative rather than individually decisive.
Finally it builds a submission ladder with the elapsed cost of each rung written down, and a stopping rule for when rejections are telling you about the paper rather than about the venues.
Best used for
- Choosing where to submit a finished manuscript
- Understanding and acting on a desk rejection
- Checking whether an unfamiliar or soliciting journal is legitimate
- Deciding between a conference and a journal route
- Establishing what an access route costs and whether it meets a mandate
- Deciding whether and when to post a preprint
- Advising a student on a first submission
Typical inputs
What you give it.
Finished or near-finished manuscript, or its contribution claim and abstract, Field, subfield and the audience the work must reach, Access to candidate venues' recent published content and author guidelines, Funder and institutional access mandates, Budget for publication charges, and who pays, Prior submission history and any prior dissemination (preprint, thesis, conference), Time constraints and career-stage requirements
Typical outputs
What you get back.
Paper venue profile written before candidates are considered, Candidate table with scope grade, review model, turnaround, charges and mandate compliance, Fit notes evidenced from reading a year of each venue's actual content, Predatory screening record against ten checkable signals, with sources, Ordered submission ladder with expected elapsed time and a stopping rule, Preprint and prior-dissemination decision with disclosure list, Venue-specific submission checklist and cover letter
Method coverage
What the skill works through.
- Why most venue decisions fail
- Building a candidate list from your own reference list
- Reading a year of a journal instead of its scope statement
- Scope fit and the desk rejection
- Turnaround, selectivity and review models
- Open access routes, charges and who pays
- Licences, embargoes and mandate compliance
- Screening for predatory publishers on checkable signals
- Why the predatory boundary is not clean
- Conference or journal, and how fields differ
- Preprints and discipline-specific norms
- Building a submission ladder and pricing each rung
- Simultaneous submission, and why it is prohibited
- Writing a cover letter an editor will actually read
Download
Free skill. One file.
Enter your email once. Every skill you download after that takes a single click.
How to install
Add the skill file and the five kernel protocols to a Claude Project, a ChatGPT Project, a Gemini Gem, or paste them at the top of any assistant conversation. Then give it your real research material, not a description of it.
Download skillQuestions
Common questions.
Why was my paper desk rejected?
Most often for scope: the editor judged that it is not for this venue's readers, which is a decision about fit rather than quality. The wording matters. "Not within scope" means go elsewhere unchanged. "Not competitive for this journal" means go down the ladder unchanged. "The contribution is not clear" means do not submit anywhere until the paper is restructured.
How do I know if a journal is predatory?
Check signals at their own sources rather than at the journal's description of itself. Verify indexing claims at the indexing service, look up three or four named editorial board members on their own institutional pages, find the publication fee before submitting, and read three recent articles end to end. Treat the signals as cumulative: one weak signal is a question, three or more together is a conclusion.
Is a journal that charges a publication fee predatory?
No. Charging is a feature of several legitimate access models, and plenty of predatory outlets charge nothing until acceptance. Fees are relevant to screening only through transparency: a legitimate venue tells you the charge before you submit.
How do I choose a journal for my paper?
Start from your own reference list and count which venues published the work you are in conversation with. Then read twelve months of each candidate's content and ask whether you can name a specific recent paper yours speaks to. If you cannot, it is a weak candidate whatever its reputation.
Should I post a preprint?
It depends entirely on your field and your target venue. In some disciplines preprinting before submission is standard and expected; in others a venue may treat it as prior publication. Establish the field norm and the specific venue's policy rather than generalising from another discipline, and disclose the preprint at submission either way.
Can I submit my paper to more than one journal at a time?
No. Simultaneous submission is prohibited at essentially every reputable venue: it wastes reviewers' unpaid labour at every venue but one and can commit you to conflicting publication agreements. Submit to one, wait for the decision, and withdraw formally in writing before submitting elsewhere. If the wait is the problem, weight turnaround more heavily when choosing.
Should I aim high or play it safe?
Both have costs and they are not symmetrical. Aiming high costs elapsed time: two weeks if the rejection comes at desk stage, three to six months if it comes after review. Aiming low costs reach, and that failure is invisible because nothing bad appears to happen. Write the expected elapsed time for the whole ladder down before you decide, because it is usually longer than authors assume.
Do I need to publish open access?
Only if a funder or institution requires it, and if they do, check the requirement carefully: many mandates specify a licence and a maximum embargo as well as availability, and a route can be open and still non-compliant. Many venues offer a no-cost route through repository deposit of the accepted version that satisfies a mandate without a publication charge.
Is a conference paper as good as a journal article?
It depends on the field. In some disciplines the archival conference is where the field's central work appears and is reviewed to the same standard. In others a conference paper is a work-in-progress step toward a journal article. Getting this wrong misallocates an entire publication effort, so establish your field's norm rather than importing another's.
The skill chain
Works well with.
Research where people already are.
Analyse it where you already work.
Yazi helps researchers conduct surveys, AI interviews and longitudinal research directly through WhatsApp.
