---
name: journal-submission
description: Assess journal fit and prepare a verified submission package against current venue requirements, with truthful declarations, complete files, and unresolved items clearly identified.
---

# Journal submission

Use this Academic Research Assistant skill to evaluate venue fit and prepare materials for journal submission or resubmission. Follow the [research contract](../../docs/RESEARCH-CONTRACT.md). Preparation and verification can proceed within the task; uploading, paying, accepting terms, signing declarations, or sending a submission requires explicit authorization for that external action.

## Inputs and venue fit

Obtain the manuscript, supplements, figures, data or code statements, author-approved contribution details, intended article type, venue preferences, and constraints such as fees or publication timing. If no venue is chosen, compare plausible venues using current scope, article types, recent relevant publications, review model, indexing evidence, access policies, and disclosed fees. Do not guarantee acceptance, review speed, impact, or legitimacy from a single metric.

Verify venue identity and instructions from the actual journal or publisher. Treat unsolicited invitations and confusingly similar titles carefully without making unsupported accusations. Recommendations should explain fit to the manuscript's question, methods, audience, and evidence strength rather than rank journals by prestige alone.

## Prepare the package

1. Read the current instructions for the chosen article type and build a requirements matrix: length, structure, abstract, keywords, references, figure format, supplements, anonymization, reporting materials, declarations, and source or compiled-file needs. Record the date checked and unresolved ambiguities.
2. Review claim readiness. Confirm that the manuscript distinguishes results from proposals, identifies relevant limitations, and accurately describes data, analysis, and validation. Route a scientific audit to [research appraisal](../research-appraisal/SKILL.md); formatting cannot repair an unsupported conclusion.
3. Reconcile title, author order, affiliations, corresponding-author information, abstract, and declarations across all files. Do not infer consent to authorship or submission from a name appearing in an old draft. Mark confirmations that require the responsible authors.
4. Prepare a cover letter around the problem, the contribution actually demonstrated, audience fit, and any required factual declarations. Avoid promotional novelty claims and statements about exclusivity, conflicts, ethics approval, or author consent unless verified and authorized.
5. Check files as a coherent package. Resolve missing figures, broken cross-references, incomplete references, inconsistent supplementary labels, stale outputs, and unidentified versions. For blind review, inspect metadata and indirect identifying content according to the venue's requirements rather than deleting scientifically necessary provenance without explanation.
6. Verify data and code availability statements against actual access, restrictions, versions, and identifiers. An intended future deposit is not a completed public archive. Do not expose restricted materials to satisfy a generic openness expectation.
7. Assemble a manifest with filenames, roles, versions, and verification status. Preserve editable sources and a clean rendered copy when required. Coordinate builds and visual inspection with [document production](../document-production/SKILL.md).

## Method and disclosure boundaries

Quantitative manuscripts may need design-specific reporting and registration details; verify applicability instead of claiming every checklist is mandatory. Qualitative manuscripts need faithful methodological and contextual reporting without unnecessary exposure of participants. Theoretical manuscripts need complete assumptions, derivations or proof access, and clear conjecture status. Computational manuscripts need reproducible settings, artifact provenance, and an honest boundary between implementation checks and scientific validation.

Review reuse permissions, preprint policies, prior publication, conflicts, funding, contributor statements, and AI-assistance disclosure using actual requirements. For uncertain obligations, prepare a focused question and the relevant facts. Do not invent declaration text merely to fill every portal field.

## Deliverable and final checks

Deliver the submission-ready local files, cover letter draft, requirements matrix, manifest, and unresolved author or institutional confirmations. Use [citations and bibliographies](../citations-and-bibliographies/SKILL.md) for reference-backend consistency and [reviewer response](../reviewer-response/SKILL.md) for revised submissions.

Check the final rendered manuscript and supplements, not only source syntax. Confirm that the package contains the versions reviewed and that citations, numbering, and figures agree. State whether preparation is complete, whether specific items remain, and whether any submission action actually occurred. Never call a draft package submitted or accepted without an observable confirmation from the venue.