venue

name	venue
description	Identify and evaluate publication venues. Considers scope, impact factor, review timeline, acceptance rate, and fit. Produces a ranked shortlist with submission strategy guidance. Updates .papermill/state.md.

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/state.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/state.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
• Software with research application: JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software) — any language, any domain. See the JOSS note below.

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/state.md (Edit tool). If .papermill/state.md does not exist, skip this step and suggest /papermill:init. Updates:

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.

JOSS Note

If JOSS is recommended or selected, be aware that JOSS papers are not traditional manuscripts — they are 750-1750 word software descriptions in Markdown (paper.md) with rigid required sections. Papermill's writing tools (outline, proof, polish) are not designed for this format. Instead:

• Use /pub-pipeline:joss-draft to draft the paper.md and paper.bib.
• Use /pub-pipeline:joss-audit to verify repository and paper compliance.
• If the software has a companion theory paper, write that with papermill and cite it from the JOSS paper.

JOSS accepts software in any language (Python, R, Julia, C++, etc.) with obvious research application. It does not require the paper to present novel methodology — just that the software is useful for research. The JOSS paper describes the software; the research contribution lives in companion papers or the software's own documentation.

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.
• If JOSS was selected: Use /pub-pipeline:joss-draft instead of papermill for the paper itself.