KONSİLThe cost of choosing the wrong journal is not money — it is time. An out-of-scope submission sits on an editor's desk for 2–6 weeks, comes back as a desk rejection, gets reformatted for another journal, and your timeline has slipped a quarter — without a single reviewer ever reading it. This guide collects the tables that turn journal choice from folklore ("everyone submits there") into criteria.
1. Read the metrics correctly: IF, CiteScore, SJR, quartiles
| Metric | Who computes it | What it measures | The trap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact Factor (JIF) | Clarivate (JCR) | Mean citations this year to the last 2 years' papers | Licensed data; "IF" numbers floating on the web are often stale or invented — verify in JCR |
| CiteScore | Elsevier (Scopus) | Mean citations over a 4-year window | Different window → not directly comparable to JIF |
| SJR | Scimago (Scopus data) | Weights where citations come from | Volatile year-to-year in small fields |
| Journal h-index | Various (Scholar, OpenAlex) | Historical accumulation | Favours old, large journals; blind to good new ones |
| Quartile (Q1–Q4) | JCR and Scimago separately | The journal's slice within its category | The same journal can be Q1 in one category and Q2 in another — "Q1" is meaningless without naming the category |
2. The question that matters more than any metric
Does the journal actually publish your topic? Not what its "aims & scope" page claims — what it has printed in the last 2–3 years. Practical method: search the journal's archive with your own keywords and count. A "high-IF" journal printing 1–2 papers a year on your topic is a worse target than a mid-tier journal printing 40 — your odds of surviving the editor's desk are simply higher where your topic demonstrably lives.
3. Open access and APCs: what you pay, what you don't
| Model | Reader pays | Author pays | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subscription | Library/subscription | Usually nothing | Limited reach; many offer a paid "hybrid" OA option |
| Gold OA | Free | APC — typically a few hundred to $5,000+ depending on field and journal | Settle who pays the invoice before submitting |
| Hybrid | Mixed | APC only if you choose OA | Some funders refuse to cover hybrid APCs |
| Diamond/Platinum OA | Free | Free | Society/institution-funded; most national-platform journals use this model |
| Green OA | — | Free | Self-archiving the accepted manuscript; check the embargo period |
APC waivers: Many publishers run country-based waiver/discount programmes, and library consortia increasingly have transformative agreements that cover APCs. Ask your library before paying an APC out of pocket.
4. Predatory-journal checklist
| Check | Legitimate journal | Predatory journal |
|---|---|---|
| DOAJ listing (if OA) | Listed | Not listed, or "application pending" excuses |
| Editorial board | Real, verifiable names with consistent affiliations | Names used without permission, or unfindable |
| Indexing claims | "In Scopus" verifiable in Scopus's own source list | Meaningless claims like "indexed in Google Scholar" |
| Invitation emails | Rare, relevant | Flattering mass spam far outside your field |
| Peer-review promise | Realistic timelines (weeks–months) | "Acceptance within 7 days" guarantees |
| APC transparency | Public on the site, known BEFORE submission | An invoice that appears after the acceptance email |
| Website / DOIs | Working DOIs, proper archive | Broken links, "articles" without DOIs |
Rule of thumb: do not submit to a journal that fails the Think-Check-Submit checklist. A paper published in a predatory journal cannot be un-published — the same data cannot be submitted again to a real journal.
5. National journals and platforms: when they are the right venue
Most research countries run national journal platforms and indexes — Türkiye's DergiPark (TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM's hosting platform for 2,000+ peer-reviewed journals, with the separate quality index TR Dizin), SciELO in Latin America, and national indexes elsewhere. A national venue is the right choice when: findings are specific to a national health/education system; the audience you need to reach reads in the local language; your promotion criteria explicitly count nationally-indexed papers (check the index, not just the platform — being hosted is not being indexed); or you have no APC budget (most national-platform journals charge nothing). If international visibility is the primary goal, target an English-language journal covered by Scopus/WoS — the two serve different purposes rather than competing.
6. What is a desk rejection, and how do you avoid it?
A desk rejection is a rejection by the editor before peer review. At large journals a substantial share of submissions — by some journals' own published figures, more than half — end here. The good news: nearly every desk-rejection cause is fixable before you submit:
| Reason | Fix |
|---|---|
| Out of scope (the most common) | The actual-publication check from section 2; when unsure, send a short presubmission inquiry |
| Novelty not visible on page one | Make the abstract's final sentence state exactly what the study adds |
| Language quality | A native-speaker or professional edit before submission; short sentences, active voice |
| Journal format ignored | Apply the author guidelines like a template: word limits, reference style, figure specs |
| Missing ethics statements | Approval number + consent sentence + COI + data-availability ready at submission |
| High similarity (plagiarism) score | Rewrite even boilerplate methods sentences in your own words; never quote without attribution |
| No cover letter / template letter | Use the 5-line skeleton below, tailored to the journal |
| Design below the journal's floor | Some journals refuse e.g. single-centre retrospective designs outright — read the "we do not consider" list |
The cover letter: a 5-line skeleton
- Title and article type (original research / review / case report)
- The main finding in one sentence — with the number
- Why this journal: cite 1–2 of its recent related papers
- Ethics statements: approval, conflicts, not under consideration elsewhere
- Suggested (or opposed) reviewers, if the journal accepts them
7. The decision flow: a three-journal plan
- List 6–8 journals that actually published your topic in the last 3 years (actual output, not metrics)
- Filter by access model and APC (budget + funder rules)
- Run the predatory checklist (section 4)
- Rank the rest A / B / C: A = best fit, C = safe harbour; if rejected, reformat and submit to the next within a week — momentum matters
- Submit to ONE journal at a time — simultaneous submission is an ethics violation
FAQ
Can I resubmit to the same journal after rejection?
Not after a plain "reject", unless the editor explicitly invites it (reject & resubmit). "Major revision" is not a rejection — it is an invitation; return on time with a point-by-point response letter.
The journal offered a "transfer" — should I accept?
Large publishers cascade rejected papers to sister journals. It saves time (reviews often travel with the paper), but accept only if the sister journal also passes sections 2–4 — a transfer is not a substitute for quality control.
Sources and standards
- DOAJ — Directory of Open Access Journals (doaj.org)
- Think-Check-Submit (thinkchecksubmit.org)
- COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics (publicationethics.org)
- DergiPark (dergipark.org.tr) and TR Dizin (trdizin.gov.tr) as a worked national example
- OpenAlex — journals' actual output and citation data (openalex.org)
There is a step that runs this scan for you
KONSİL's publisher step finds the journals that actually published the most in your idea's topic areas over the last 3 years using OpenAlex data — with open-access/APC info, the DOAJ check and in-topic quartile attached. It also searches for a national candidate separately, and says so honestly when none qualifies.
See the journal suggestions in the sample report → Apply for the closed beta →