Compass
Journal Fit Predictor
Paste your paper’s title and abstract. We rank 1,321 journals and conferences by scope fit, return the top 5 with a one-sentence reason for each, and tell you what to strengthen.
We don’t train AI on your data. Abstracts use short-lived result caching.
Paste your abstract
Title is optional but sharpens the match. 200-character minimum.
We score against 1,321 venues
The matcher reads each venue’s scope language and finds the top 5 fits across journals + conferences.
See the why behind each match
Fit score, stretch / realistic / safe tier, and a sentence on what to strengthen.
Why journal fit matters
Scope mismatch is the single most common reason for desk rejection: surveys of editorial decision-making (Bjork, 2019; Calcagno et al., 2012) put it at ~21% of all submissions, ahead of methodological flaws or English-language quality. Picking a poorly-matched journal also costs an estimated 4 to 6 months per rejection cycle, plus a full re-formatting pass for the next attempt.
Editors describe scope-fit decisions as the fastest filter they apply: most papers spend less than five minutes in initial triage. The point of this tool is to put a research-shaped second opinion in front of you before that triage clock starts.
Limitations
- Corpus coverage. Strongest for biomedical, chemistry, physics, materials, and computer science. Thinner for social sciences, pure mathematics, and earth sciences. Out-of-corpus papers receive low fit scores and a confidence warning.
- Abstract-only. The tool reads only what you paste. Methodology details, figures, and full-text rigor signals are not available to the matcher. For a manuscript-level read, run a full readiness scan.
- Fit, not novelty. We score scope alignment and tier realism. We do not assess whether the work itself is publishable, novel, or technically sound.
- Not a substitute for editor judgment. Use the rankings as one input. Consider editor relationships, special issues, and the politics of your subfield.
Full disclosure of the 1,321-venue corpus and its sources, the impact-factor provenance (verified JCR 2024 vs OpenAlex proxy), the ranking model, and the scope-only constraint is on the Compass methodology page, including the citable, downloadable corpus dataset (Zenodo DOI).
Manuscript-level read
Want a manuscript-level signal, not just a scope match?
The journal-fit predictor reads only your abstract. The full readiness scan reads the entire manuscript and returns a desk-reject risk score, the top reviewer-flag patterns, journal-specific failure modes, and a prioritized fix list. The reviewer-risk language is calibrated from early work with 35+ CNS-experienced reviewers, without promising acceptance or implying a human reviewer is reading this AI scan. Free preview, $39 only if you want the full report.
Calibrated from early work with 35+ CNS-experienced reviewers and senior scientists. Their reviewer language shaped how Manusights flags unsupported claims, weak evidence, journal-fit risk, and likely reviewer objections. Logos indicate researcher affiliation, publication context, or calibration-network context, not endorsement.
Already picked a journal? Verify a citation in your manuscript with Manusights Verify · paste a sentence with a reference and we’ll tell you whether the cited paper actually supports your claim.
Picked a specific target from the top 5? Stress-test it with Manusights Lens · returns a 0-100 scope-fit risk score for the venue you have already chosen, with named scope-fit patterns and lower-risk alternatives.