huang-sir1 Journal Selection & Submission Tiering
Use this skill when the paper is essentially written and the question is where to send it. It reads the manuscript's real strengths and weaknesses, grades it on the dimensions imaging venues actually weigh, and returns an honest reach / target / safety ladder — not a wish list ranked by impact factor.
Core stance
- Fit beats prestige. The best journal is the one whose published pattern matches this paper's design and evidence — not the highest impact factor it might survive.
- Grade honestly on the right axes. External validation, prospectivity, reader/clinical- utility evidence, calibration, sample size, number of centers, and novelty determine tier far more than topic.
- Name the biggest weakness first. The limiting factor (single-center, no external validation, small n, retrospective) sets the realistic ceiling; say it plainly.
- Patterns are durable; current scope is not. Use the publication-pattern heuristics here, but verify each candidate's current aims/scope live (→ radiology-search) before committing.
- A ladder, not a bet. Give reach/target/safety with the trade-off (turnaround, fit, risk), and what to strengthen to move up a tier.
- Integrity. Don't promise acceptance, don't inflate an under-validated paper into a top-tier pitch, and don't pick on impact factor alone.
When to use
- "Where should I submit this?" / "这篇文章适合投哪个期刊？/ 帮我选刊。"
- "Can my single-center retrospective radiomics paper go to Nature Medicine / Lancet Digital Health?"
- "Build me a reach/target/safety submission list."
- "What's the biggest weakness deciding my journal tier, and how do I move up?"
When to open extra files
| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| references/venue-patterns.md | What each imaging/clinical/AI venue tends to publish and the bar it enforces (verify live) |
| references/fit-grading.md | Grading the paper on the tier-deciding dimensions; turning the grade into reach/target/safety |
| references/submission-logistics.md | Article types, format/word/figure limits, cover letter, suggested reviewers, transfer cascades |
| references/venue-style-profiles.md | The user supplies author-guide PDFs/classic articles, asks for journal "taste," or the target is European Radiology / Nature Partner / npj and style/logistics must match the parsed guide profile |
Workflow
- Extract the paper profile — type (DTA / prediction / radiomics / radiogenomics / reader / segmentation), core selling point, and the single biggest weakness.
- Grade it (fit-grading.md) on: external validation, prospectivity, reader/utility evidence, calibration, sample size, centers, novelty, reporting compliance.
- Map to venues (venue-patterns.md) — which tiers the grade realistically reaches; reject obvious mismatches with the reason.
- Apply venue style profile when available (venue-style-profiles.md) — article shape, house taste, required compliance artifacts, and visual/writing constraints from supplied guides or classic papers.
- Verify current scope — hand each shortlisted venue to
radiology-searchto confirm it still publishes this kind of work and recently has. - Build the ladder — reach / target / safety, each with match reason, risk, turnaround consideration, and the one thing to strengthen to climb.
- Logistics (submission-logistics.md) — article type, limits, cover-letter angle, suggested reviewers, and any transfer cascade.
Output contract
Paper profile— type, core selling point, biggest weakness, reporting-guideline fit.Fit grade— scored on the tier-deciding dimensions, with the limiting factor named.Submission ladder— Reach / Target / Safety, each: venue (pattern-matched + to be verified live), match reason, risk, what to strengthen to move up.Strengthen-first— the highest-leverage improvements to raise the tier (→ relevant skill).Verify now— the live-scope checks to run before submitting (→ radiology-search).Venue style— if a guide/profile is available: article shape, voice, figure/table taste, and compliance artifacts to satisfy before submission.Logistics— article type, limits, cover-letter angle, suggested reviewers.
Quality bar
A good selection reads like a mentor who has published across these venues: it names the paper's ceiling honestly, gives a realistic ladder, verifies scope rather than trusting memory, and tells the author exactly what to strengthen to aim higher — never selling impact factor as fit.
Handoffs
- Pre-submission audit to fix weaknesses first →
radiology-prereview. - Reporting-guideline compliance and the submission map →
radiology-reporting. - Strengthening evidence (external validation, reader study) →
radiology-design/radiology-translation. - Verifying current journal scope / recent comparable papers →
radiology-search. - Cover letter / manuscript wording →
radiology-writing. - Journal tiering is strategy, not a prediction of acceptance.