Submitting to the wrong journal costs you months of time and significantly reduces your paper's chances of publication. Yet most researchers choose journals based on name recognition or where their supervisor published a decade ago. Here's a better approach.
Journals specialize in different contribution types — theoretical proofs, empirical benchmarks, systematic reviews, case studies, position papers. Identify your primary contribution type first, then find journals that regularly publish that type. Submitting an empirical paper to a theory-focused journal wastes everyone's time.
Look at the 10 papers most similar to yours (in method, topic, and contribution). Which journals published them? This gives you a data-driven shortlist of journals that have already demonstrated interest in your type of work. Add any journals with 3+ papers from your list.
Read the journal's aims and scope document — not the one-line description on the homepage, but the full version. Check whether their scope has shifted in the last 2 years by browsing recent issues. Journals sometimes drift from their stated scope, and recent issues tell you more than the official description.
Consider: impact factor vs. acceptance rate tradeoff, typical review timeline, open access requirements (and whether you have APC budget), page limits, and whether your institution's subscription covers the journal. A Nature Methods rejection after 8 months costs more than a Journal of XYZ acceptance after 6 weeks.
Rank your candidate journals into three tiers: reach (top venue, 15–25% acceptance), target (strong fit, 30–45% acceptance), and safety (reliable fit, 50%+). Plan to work down the list, incorporating reviewer feedback at each stage. Never submit to just one journal — have your next submission ready to go.
Catch the issues in this article before a real reviewer does. Free for your first 2 papers.
Start Free Review →