24
How to choose a journal for publication
Scope, audience, indexing, review speed, cost and red flags, with a journal–preprint–popular-science comparison and a practical selection sequence.
Choose the journal before doing the final formatting of the manuscript. Otherwise you may spend hours adapting references, length and structure to a random target, receive a desk rejection and then start the formatting again. Begin with scientific fit, not prestige.
Scope and audience
Read the aims and scope and inspect recent issues. Ask three questions: does the journal publish this type of study, is your research object relevant to its readers, and does it publish work using similar methods? A broad overlap such as “medicine” or “economics” is not enough.
Audience affects framing. The same result can be discussed for clinicians, methodologists or health-policy specialists, but each audience expects different context and implications.
Indexing
Check the database that actually matters to you. If a grant, promotion rule or institution requires Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE or a national list, search the official catalogue rather than trusting a logo displayed on the journal website.
Do not treat one metric as a universal quality score. Citation patterns differ greatly between disciplines, and a young specialist journal can be a strong venue without a large number attached to its name.
Review speed
Look for published statistics, if available, such as time to first decision and time to publication. Check whether “first decision” includes rapid desk rejections, because that can make the figure look faster than the actual review process.
Speed matters when the result is time-sensitive. But a promise of complex expert review within a day is a reason to investigate the journal, not an advantage by itself.
Cost
Find the APC before submission, together with possible page charges, colour charges or optional service fees. Check institutional agreements and waivers or discounts that may apply. Free publication for the author does not necessarily mean closed access, and open access does not necessarily mean the author must pay.
Red flags
Questionable indexing, an unknown metric presented as prestigious, a hidden APC, mass invitations unrelated to your field, a fictitious editorial board and promises of acceptance before the manuscript is read are all warning signs. Article No. 20 contains the full checklist.
Journal, preprint or popular-science publication
| Format | Main purpose | Peer review | Academic publication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific journal | evaluate and record research for specialists | usually yes | yes |
| Preprint | make a manuscript public before a journal decision | usually no before posting | depends on context; does not replace a journal |
| Popular-science publication | explain research to a broad audience | no scientific peer review | no |
These formats can coexist when journal and discipline policies allow it. They should not be presented as equivalents.
A practical selection sequence
1. Build a list of 5–8 journals from keywords and papers you already cite. 2. Remove journals whose scope does not fit. 3. Verify official indexing. 4. Compare article types, word limits and data requirements. 5. Compare expected timelines and cost. 6. Check reputation signals and the editorial board. 7. Choose one main and one backup journal, but do not submit to both simultaneously if duplicate submission is prohibited.
Checklist before choosing
- the journal publishes my type of study;
- its readers actually care about this question;
- indexing has been verified in the primary database;
- APC and other charges are known;
- the open-access policy is clear;
- the expected timeline fits the project;
- preprint and data policies have been read;
- the editorial board can be verified;
- the author guidelines are realistically achievable.
Compare trade-offs, not a mythical “best journal”
One journal may have the ideal audience but a long review cycle. Another may be faster but charge a high APC. A third may cost the author nothing but be rarely read in your narrow field. The correct choice depends on which constraint is critical for this project.
Make a table of five candidates and separate mandatory conditions from preferences. Mandatory conditions may include scope, permitted article type, grant requirements, ethical rules and a realistic way to cover fees. Preferences may include speed, familiar formatting, status in the field and usability of the submission system. Do not allow one attractive preference to override a failed mandatory condition.
Judge the journal by what it actually publishes
Open several articles from the last year and compare subject, method and level of specialisation with your manuscript. A journal may describe its scope broadly while in practice publishing almost exclusively one subfield.
Look at article length, number of figures, common statistical approaches and the kind of questions visible in titles and abstracts. You are not trying to imitate another paper. You are checking whether editors will recognise your manuscript as a type of work their readers expect.
When to contact the editor before submission
If the topic sits near the edge of the journal's scope, a short presubmission inquiry can save time when the journal accepts such queries. State the research question, article type and why it fits the readership. Do not send a long biography of the authors.
An answer saying that you may submit is not an acceptance. It usually means only that the manuscript is not obviously outside the journal's remit.
Check that the journal is still accepting the article type
Recommendations age quickly. A journal can change publisher, change scope, stop publication or temporarily close a category of submissions. Before final formatting, inspect the current author instructions and recent issues. Half a day spent adapting a manuscript is wasted if that article type is no longer accepted.
If two journals appear equally suitable, discuss the choice with all co-authors before formatting. One may know the audience better, another may know that a grant restricts licensing, and another may know that the budget cannot cover an APC. Early agreement prevents repeated work later.
Do not choose a journal solely because a colleague recently published there. Their topic, funding, budget and timing may have been different. Treat their experience as a signal to investigate, not as a ready-made decision.
Where to explain the research to the public
Choosing a scientific journal solves an academic publication task. Public communication is a separate task. Science Official in the Mosaic network is a popular-science publication: it can explain a study to readers, but it does not replace a scientific journal.
What Columnist provides
Through Columnist, a researcher can publish a popular-science column without a scientific peer-review procedure. The article receives the author's name, a date and a place in a network publication. That is useful for public explanation, but it must not be listed as a peer-reviewed scientific article.
Choose the scientific journal for the academic task, and publish a separate public explanation through Columnist, at columnist.mib.news.
FAQ
How do I know whether the scope fits?
Read both the stated scope and recent articles. If your study type and audience are absent from recent issues, one broad matching keyword is not enough.
Should I choose the journal with the highest impact factor?
Not automatically. Fit and readership come first. Metrics can be one criterion, but they do not replace editorial relevance.
How do I verify indexing?
Use the official catalogue of the database you need and search by journal title and ISSN. A logo on the journal site is not proof.
Can I post a preprint first?
That depends on the journal and discipline. Many journals allow preprints, but check the current policy before posting.
Reading is half of it. The other half is a column with your name on it, in a real publication.
Start writing