Submission Desk deterministic journal decision engine

Hard gates

A journal must clear every box to be scored. Uncheck one → it's out, no debate.

    Deterministic filter: gates run before any scoring. Any unchecked gate blanks the Verdict until it is cleared.

    Candidate journals

    Edit any cell. Fit is a 1–5 rubric score (scope-match × novelty × rigor vs the journal's bar).

    Journal IF Rate % Fit heuristic Wk APC P acc Score
    Load Crossref snapshot

    Verdict

    Ranked, deterministic. Top pick gets the stamp. Bars are relative to the leader.

    Flow & status

    Fixed states so tracking never drifts. Reject loops back to the next journal on the ladder.

    ↩  On Reject: return to Format for journal #2 on your ranked ladder — no re-deciding, the list already picked it.

    Timeline

    Typical durations — edit the weeks. This is what the "stretch" submission really costs you.

    Time to publication: 0 weeks

    Durations anchored to Rees et al. 2022 (n=691): mean 8.4 wk to first decision, 19.6 wk submission→acceptance.

    How the numbers work

    Full provenance and limitations live in docs/METHOD.md.

    The formulas

    P_accept = clamp( (Rate/100) × fitFactor , 0.02 , 0.95 ) with fitFactor = 0.5 / 0.75 / 1.0 / 1.3 / 1.6 for Fit 1–5.

    Expected Yield ranks by EIM = P_accept × IF / (weeks ÷ 4.345) — impact actually captured per month. Balanced ranks by a weighted, min-max-normalized blend of prestige, acceptance odds, speed and cost.

    Everything is repeatable: same inputs → same ranking. The only judgement is the Fit score, and the rubric pins that down. Nothing is stored — reloading clears the desk.

    Evidence

    Fit-first ranking follows Rees et al.1 (Perspect Med Educ, 2022; n=691): prioritising fit doubled the odds of first-choice acceptance (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.55–2.88), while prioritising impact reduced them (OR 0.37). Timeline defaults come from the same survey. The Expected Yield formula is a simplification of the Markov decision model in Salinas & Munch2 (PLoS One, 2015).

    Items marked heuristic are author-set and unvalidated.

    References

    1. Rees EL, Burton O, Asif A, Eva KW. A method for the madness: an international survey of health professions education authors’ journal choice. Perspect Med Educ. 2022;11(3):165-172. doi:10.1007/s40037-022-00698-9
    2. Salinas S, Munch SB. Where should I send it? Optimizing the submission decision process. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e0115451. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115451

    Resources

    Curated real-world tools for every column and gate. Each opens in a new tab.

    Impact factor & metrics

    JCR — Journal Citation Reports the official Clarivate Journal Impact Factor.
    Scopus Sources CiteScore, SNIP, SJR.
    OpenAlex free metadata that powers this tool's auto-fill (IF proxy = 2y mean citedness).

    Find the right journal (scope)

    JANE paste your abstract, get matching journals.
    Web of Science Manuscript Matcher match by title & abstract.

    Legitimacy — avoid predatory venues

    DOAJ vetted open-access journals.
    Think · Check · Submit a checklist before you submit.
    COPE publication-ethics standards.

    Fees / open access (APC)

    Taylor & Francis OA Cost Finder look up APCs per journal.
    DOAJ APC amounts & licence terms.
    cOAlition S Journal Checker Tool funder / Plan S OA compliance.