Turn "where should I submit this paper?" into a ranked shortlist of
venue-track pairs with scores, deadlines, page budgets, and an explicit
verification status — grounded in the repo's venues/ profiles, not vibes.
-
Elicit the inputs. Confirm topic, contribution type, and constraints
in one round of questions. The contribution type changes the shortlist
more than the topic — pin it down first (references/track-fit.md,
"Contribution taxonomy").
-
Survey profiled venues. Run:
python3 scripts/list_venues.py
This lists every profile with deadline proximity, blind level,
submission system, and per-track page budgets, sorted by next upcoming
submission deadline. Useful flags: --upcoming-only, --family <name>,
--track <name>, --json (full data incl. track notes), --today YYYY-MM-DD (reproducible runs). Never compute date arithmetic by hand.
Caveat: some venues (e.g. SIGSPATIAL) have per-track deadlines that
differ from the top-level ones — they live in each track's notes
field; read them in the --json output.
-
Build the candidate set. Combine (a) profiled venues that plausibly
match the topic, and (b) venues you know fit the topic but have no
profile yet. For unprofiled candidates, resolve identity via DBLP:
CONTACT_EMAIL=you@example.org python3 scripts/dblp_venue_lookup.py search "<venue name>"
Optionally gauge venue size with
dblp_venue_lookup.py toc-count <dblp_key> <year>. Mark every
unprofiled candidate clearly and suggest parse-cfp to profile it.
Aim for 5-10 candidate venue-track pairs before scoring.
-
Gather prestige signals. For each candidate, look up CORE rank,
h5-index, CCF class (if the user cares), and acceptance rate following
references/ranking-sources.md. Hard rule: every number carries a
source + edition/year, or is labeled "unverified — indicative" /
"unknown". Never state a rank or acceptance rate from memory as fact,
and never invent one.
-
Score and rank. Apply the 0-10 rubric in references/track-fit.md
(topic fit 0-3, track fit 0-3, prestige fit 0-2, deadline feasibility
0-2), then apply its tie-breakers and red-flag vetoes (embargoes,
dual-submission bans, attendance mandates).
-
Re-verify the top picks against live CFPs — mandatory. For the top
3 venues, fetch each profile's cfp_url and confirm the facts the user
will act on: deadlines (and their timezone — AoE vs PT matters), page
limits and what they exclude, blind level, submission system. Profiles
are a starting point, never ground truth; a stale page limit causes a
desk reject. Record what was verified and when in the output. If a CFP
cannot be reached, mark that venue "NOT re-verified" — do not silently
present profile data as confirmed.
-
Deliver the shortlist (format below) and offer next steps:
parse-cfp for unprofiled picks, tailor-to-venue once a target is
chosen, plan-submission for the timeline.
Below the table, per venue: 2-4 lines of rationale (the four rubric scores
with one-line justifications), the red flags checked, and — for any venue
whose deadline has passed — the next expected cycle. Close with the
explicit disclaimer that the user must confirm all critical facts on the
venue's own CFP page before planning around them.
