What this desk does
A 60-second orientation, structured like a paper (IMRaD).
Introduction
You've written a paper — where should it go? For clinicians and biomedical researchers, journal choice is usually made by feel, or by walking down an impact-factor list. Submission Desk turns it into a repeatable procedure: gate, score, rank — the same inputs always give the same answer.
Methods
Three steps. Hard gates: five yes/no eligibility checks — fail one and a journal is out. Score: acceptance probability = published acceptance rate × your fit; then rank by Expected Yield (impact captured per month) or a Balanced weighted blend. P_accept = clamp(rate × fit, 0.02, 0.95) · EIM = P_accept × IF / months.
Results
A ranked shortlist with one top pick, plus what-if analytics — sensitivity, trade-off (Pareto), Monte Carlo robustness, and a two-mode comparison — and a timeline showing the real weeks a "stretch" submission costs.
Discussion & evidence
Grounded where possible: prioritising fit roughly doubled first-choice acceptance (Rees 2022, OR 2.11); the yield formula simplifies the Markov model of Salinas & Munch (2015). Heuristics are labelled, and the auto-filled IF is a curated approximation — verify the official JIF at JCR. This is a first-pass filter, not a substitute for reading the journal. Unfamiliar terms are defined in Method → Glossary.
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 |
|---|
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.
Timeline
Typical durations — edit the weeks. This is what the "stretch" submission really costs you.
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.
Glossary
Hard gate
Impact Factor (IF / JIF)
JCR. Auto-fill here uses a curated approximation for major journals; type the official JIF from JCR for accuracy.APC
DOAJ
Fit (1–5)
P accept
clamp(rate × fitFactor, 0.02, 0.95). A calibration estimate, not a promise.Expected Yield (EIM)
EIM = P_accept × IF / (weeks/4.345). Penalises journals that are unlikely to accept you and slow to decide.Balanced mode
Pareto frontier
Monte Carlo
Bump chart
Predatory journal
References
- 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
- 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.