radiology-journal

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 the actual study type. Evaluate whether validation, design, precision, clinical or biological evidence and novelty support this manuscript's claims; mark irrelevant dimensions not-applicable. No single design feature supplies a universal venue cutoff.
• Name the decisive weakness. Explain its effect on inference or venue fit using source evidence; single-center or retrospective design alone is not a fatal verdict.
• 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

1. Extract the paper profile — type (DTA / prediction / radiomics / radiogenomics / reader / segmentation), core selling point, and the single biggest weakness.
2. Grade it (fit-grading.md) on: external validation, prospectivity, reader/utility evidence, calibration, sample size, centers, novelty and reporting compliance where applicable to the study.
3. Map to venues (venue-patterns.md) — which tiers the grade realistically reaches; reject obvious mismatches with the reason.
4. 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.
5. Verify current scope and guide — hand each shortlisted venue to radiology-search to confirm it still publishes this kind of work and recently has; record official guide source, article type, update/access date, and portal-specific requirements.
6. Build the ladder — reach / target / safety, each with match reason, risk, turnaround consideration, and the one thing to strengthen to climb.
7. Logistics (submission-logistics.md) — article type, limits, cover-letter angle, suggested reviewers, and any transfer cascade.

Output contract

1. Paper profile — type, core selling point, biggest weakness, reporting-guideline fit.
2. Fit grade — scored on the tier-deciding dimensions, with the limiting factor named.
3. Submission ladder — Reach / Target / Safety, each: venue (pattern-matched + to be verified live), match reason, risk, what to strengthen to move up.
4. Strengthen-first — the highest-leverage improvements to raise the tier (→ relevant skill).
5. Verify now — the live-scope checks to run before submitting (→ radiology-search).
6. Venue style — if a guide/profile is available: article shape, voice, figure/table taste, and compliance artifacts to satisfy before submission.
7. Guide provenance — official source, article type, guide version/update/access date, verified limits, and unresolved portal fields.
8. 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 and journal package → radiology-submission; manuscript wording → radiology-writing.
• Upload-ready package and manifest → radiology-submission; project gate state → radiology-pipeline.
• Journal tiering is strategy, not a prediction of acceptance.