Venue Selection
Help the researcher identify the best publication venue for their paper. The right venue maximizes impact and minimizes wasted review cycles.
Step 1: Read Context
Read .papermill.md (Read tool) for:
- •Thesis: The core contribution (determines which communities care).
- •Prior art: Where key references are published (reveals relevant venues).
- •Review history: Paper quality assessment (determines venue tier).
If .papermill.md does not exist, venue selection can still proceed from the manuscript alone, but results will be stronger with thesis and prior-art context. Suggest running /papermill:init first for best results.
Read the manuscript (Read tool) to understand scope, length, and contribution type.
Step 2: Identify Candidate Venues
Use multiple signals to generate candidates:
From references
Look at where the paper's key references are published. These venues are likely in scope.
From the contribution type
- •Theoretical results: Mathematics or statistics journals (Annals of Statistics, JASA, Bernoulli)
- •Algorithms: CS conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, AAAI) or journals (JMLR, Algorithmica)
- •Applied methods: Domain-specific journals (Biometrics, Technometrics, JRSS-B)
- •Systems: Systems conferences (OSDI, SOSP) or journals (TOCS)
- •Short/preliminary results: Workshop papers or letters
From web search
Search for "best venues for [topic]" and check recent calls for papers (WebSearch tool).
Step 3: Evaluate Each Venue
For each candidate, assess:
| Factor | What to check |
|---|---|
| Scope | Does the paper's topic match the venue's published scope? |
| Impact | Impact factor, h-index, or community prestige |
| Acceptance rate | How selective is the venue? |
| Review timeline | Time from submission to decision (weeks to months) |
| Open access | Is it OA? Are there APC fees? |
| Page limits | Does the paper fit? |
| Formatting | What template/format is required? |
Step 4: Present Recommendations
Present a ranked shortlist of 3-5 venues:
Venue Recommendations
Rank Venue Fit Impact Timeline Notes 1 ... High ... ... ... 2 ... Good ... ... ... 3 ... Good ... ... ...
For each recommended venue, explain:
- •Why this venue is a good fit
- •What aspects of the paper the reviewers will care about most
- •Any adjustments needed for this venue (length, emphasis, formatting)
Step 5: Submission Strategy
Discuss strategy with the user:
- •Top-down: Submit to the best venue first, revise and resubmit if rejected.
- •Calibrated: Target the venue where acceptance is most likely given the paper's current quality.
- •Dual-track: Prepare a short version for a conference and a full version for a journal.
There is no universally correct strategy. Help the user think through the trade-offs.
Step 6: Update State File
Update .papermill.md (Edit tool):
venue:
target: "Selected venue name"
candidates:
- name: "Venue 1"
fit: "high"
deadline: "YYYY-MM-DD or rolling"
- name: "Venue 2"
fit: "good"
deadline: "YYYY-MM-DD or rolling"
Append a timestamped note documenting the venue analysis.
Step 7: Suggest Next Steps
Venue selected. Next steps:
- •
/papermill:polish: Prepare the paper for submission to the target venue.- •Check formatting: Download the venue's template and verify compliance.
- •Write cover letter: Some venues require a cover letter; draft one if needed.