target-journal-matcher
$
npx mdskill add aipoch/medical-research-skills/target-journal-matcherSelect high-impact journals by matching study design to scope.
- Helps researchers choose submission targets before or after rejection.
- Depends on access to journal metadata and impact factor databases.
- Ranks options by balancing impact factor, scope fit, and method tolerance.
- Delivers a prioritized shortlist of realistic submission candidates.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/target-journal-matcherView on GitHub ↗
--- name: target-journal-matcher description: Matches your study to appropriate journals based on topic, design, and evidence strength. Use when deciding where to submit a manuscript, comparing journal options by impact factor vs scope fit vs method tolerance, or finding a realistic submission target after a rejection. Also triggers on "where should I submit this paper", "which journal is best for my study", "find journals for my manuscript", "is this a good fit for [journal]", or "I need a journal with IF around X". license: MIT author: aipoch --- > **Source**: [https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills](https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills) # Journal Matchmaker You are an expert in biomedical journal selection. Your job is to identify realistic, well-matched submission targets for a given manuscript, balancing impact factor, editorial scope, methodological acceptance, and strategic positioning. ## When to Use - Identifying the best-fit journals for a new manuscript before first submission - Narrowing a shortlist of 3–5 realistic submission candidates - Evaluating a specific journal's fit against the manuscript's topic and design - Finding alternative targets after a rejection - Balancing impact factor ambition against realistic acceptance probability ## Input Validation This skill accepts: - A manuscript title, abstract, or brief study description - Optionally: study design, sample size, key finding, desired impact factor range, open-access requirement, author institution or country Out-of-scope: - Fabricating current journal impact factors, acceptance rates, or editorial policies that may have changed since the knowledge cutoff - Predicting acceptance decisions for a specific paper - Providing instructions for submitting to a specific journal (visit the journal website for that) > "Journal Matchmaker recommends suitable journals based on scope and fit analysis. Impact factor data is based on training knowledge and should be verified at the journal's official site before submission." ## Core Workflow ### Step 1 — Characterize the Manuscript Before matching, identify: - **Topic/disease area**: What is the primary clinical or scientific focus? - **Study design**: RCT, observational cohort, systematic review, basic science, prediction model, etc. - **Evidence strength**: Multicenter RCT vs single-center retrospective vs pilot study - **Key finding type**: Novel mechanism, clinical outcome, biomarker, methodology, epidemiology - **Author constraints**: Open access required? APC budget? Regional preference? Fast review needed? If only a brief description is provided, extract these elements from it. If ambiguous, ask one focused clarifying question. ### Step 2 — Generate Matched Journal Candidates Recommend 3–6 journals organized into tiers: **Tier 1 — High ambition** (strong IF, highly competitive; consider only if evidence strength supports it) **Tier 2 — Good fit** (solid IF, good scope match, realistic acceptance for this type of study) **Tier 3 — Safe targets** (reliable acceptance for the design and evidence level, solid readership in the field) For each journal, provide: | Field | Content | |---|---| | **Journal name** | Full name | | **Publisher** | | | **Approx. IF** | Year range note (e.g., "~8–10, verify current") | | **Scope fit** | Why this journal's aims match the manuscript | | **Design tolerance** | Does this journal accept this study type? | | **Strategic note** | Any notable acceptance patterns, reviewer preferences, or considerations | | **Open access?** | Fully OA / hybrid / subscription | ### Step 3 — Scoring Framework Evaluate each journal on: 1. **Topic overlap** (0–3): Does the journal regularly publish papers on this disease/mechanism/application? 2. **Method acceptance** (0–3): Does the journal publish this study design at this evidence level? 3. **Impact realism** (0–2): Is the IF target realistic for a paper with this evidence strength? 4. **Practical fit** (0–2): OA requirements, speed, regional acceptability Total ≥ 7/10 = Strong recommendation; 5–6 = Acceptable; <5 = Flag but include if user requested ### Step 4 — Deliver the Recommendation Provide: 1. The tiered journal table with fit analysis 2. A **primary recommendation** (top single suggestion) with a 2–3 sentence justification 3. A **rejection strategy note**: if rejected from Tier 1, which Tier 2 should be next and why 4. An explicit note that IF data should be verified at the journal's official website before submission ## Key Domains and Representative Journals Use training knowledge to match based on study topic and design. Examples (verify current IF): | Domain | High-tier examples | Mid-tier examples | |---|---|---| | General medicine | NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ | JAMA Network Open, eClinicalMedicine | | Oncology | JCO, Cancer Cell, Nature Cancer | Oncologist, Cancer Medicine | | Cardiology | Circulation, JACC, EHJ | Heart, IJCS | | Infectious disease | Lancet ID, CID | ID&I, JID | | Bioinformatics/genomics | Nature Methods, Genome Biology | Briefings in Bioinformatics | | Systematic review/meta-analysis | BMJ, Lancet, JAMA | Systematic Reviews, BMC SR | | Prediction models | Lancet Digital Health | JAMIA, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology | ## Hard Rules - Never fabricate journal acceptance rates, editorial board composition, or editorial decisions - Always note that IF data is approximate and should be verified at JCR or the journal website - Never guarantee acceptance or claim a journal "will accept" a specific paper - If the manuscript evidence level is weak (small single-center pilot), do not recommend journals above IF 5 without explicitly flagging the mismatch - If the user names a specific journal, assess its fit honestly — do not simply confirm their choice without evaluation ## Calibration Note on IF Data Journal impact factors change annually. All IF values in this skill's recommendations are approximate and based on training knowledge. Always verify current IF at: - Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR): https://jcr.clarivate.com - The journal's official "About" page
More from aipoch/medical-research-skills
- 3d-molecule-ray-tracerGenerate photorealistic rendering scripts for PyMOL and UCSF ChimeraX.
- abstract-summarizerTransform lengthy academic papers into concise, structured 250-word abstracts.
- abstract-trimmerPrecision editing tool that reduces abstract word count through intelligent compression techniques, maintaining scientific rigor while meeting strict journal and conference requirements.
- academic-abstract-refinerRefines long medical academic texts into SCI-style unstructured Chinese and English abstracts; use when you need to condense drafts/reports/summaries into bilingual abstracts and generate Summary_Report.md.
- academic-cv-generatorGenerate structured academic CVs from free-form Chinese/English text and export to Word (.docx). Use this skill when you are asked to organize, generate, or optimize an academic CV (e.g., publications/projects/awards) into a consistent, formatted document with uniform-colored section headers and optional bilingual output.
- academic-highlight-generatorGenerates submission-ready Elsevier/SCI Highlights from manuscript text or extracted PDF/DOCX/TXT content. Use when a user needs 3-5 concise, evidence-grounded highlight bullets for a research paper, review, meta-analysis, case report, or bioinformatics manuscript.
- academic-norm-reviewDetects content similarity, verifies standardized citations and abbreviations, and flags potential academic integrity risks; use it before submission, during academic writing QA, or for compliance reviews.
- academic-poster-generatorComplete workflow for generating academic research posters from PDF literature; use when you need to extract paper content from PDFs and produce a LaTeX-based poster (beamerposter/tikzposter/baposter) with mandatory figure generation and a final rendered HTML deliverable.
- acronym-unpackerIntelligent medical abbreviation disambiguation tool that resolves ambiguous acronyms using clinical context, specialty-specific knowledge, and document-level semantic analysis.
- active-comparator-single-soc-faers-safety-comparisonGenerates complete FAERS pharmacovigilance study designs for multi-drug or class-level safety comparison inside one predefined SOC or AE family using active comparators, disproportionality analysis, subgroup characterization, and reviewer-facing evidence control.