Choosing where to submit is one of the highest-leverage decisions an academic makes, and one of the most rushed. A well-targeted journal can get your work in front of exactly the people who will use and cite it; a poorly chosen one can bury a good paper for a year in the wrong readership, or worse, in a predatory outlet that damages your record permanently. Yet many researchers pick a journal in the last week before submission, defaulting to the highest impact factor they think they can reach.
The stakes are especially high for academics in emerging-market institutions, where predatory publishers aggressively target early-career researchers under pressure to publish, and where article-processing charges can consume a month's salary. This guide sets out a disciplined, globally applicable process for matching your paper to the right venue and screening out the bad actors. It sits alongside the rest of our Research, Publishing & Impact guidance.
Start With the Audience, Not the Impact Factor
The first question is not "how prestigious?" but "who needs to read this?" A paper's value comes from reaching the people who will build on it. If your study will most interest clinicians, submit where clinicians read; if it will interest a specific methodological community, target their home journal even if its impact factor is modest. The most-cited paper is often not the one in the flashiest journal but the one that landed in front of the right two hundred specialists.
Impact factor is a journal-level average dominated by a handful of highly cited papers, and it varies so much across fields that comparing a physics journal's factor to a nursing journal's is meaningless. Many institutions have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment precisely to discourage using it as a proxy for quality. Use it as one weak signal among several, not as the objective. Register and maintain a persistent identifier at orcid.org so that wherever you publish, the work is unambiguously attributed to you.
Matching Scope, Fit and Realistic Odds
Read a journal's aims-and-scope statement and, crucially, three or four recent issues. Does it publish work like yours — same methods, same length, same level of theoretical versus applied emphasis? A desk rejection for "out of scope" costs you weeks and teaches you nothing; it is almost always avoidable. Check whether they publish your article type at all (some never run short reports, case studies or replication studies), and whether your topic has appeared recently, which signals live editorial interest.
Be honest about odds. A useful tactic is to build a laddered shortlist: a stretch journal, two solid realistic targets, and a reliable fallback, all genuinely in scope. This prevents both the demoralising cycle of aiming only at journals that reject you and the waste of underselling strong work. For choosing your work so it travels to the right audiences in the first place, our guide on measuring and communicating research impact pairs naturally with journal selection.
Spotting Predatory and Low-Quality Journals
Predatory publishers charge fees while providing little or no genuine peer review or editorial service. They flatter you by email, promise rapid publication, invent impressive-sounding metrics, and list editorial boards of people who never agreed to serve. Publishing in one wastes your money, buries your work, and — because tenure and promotion committees increasingly screen for them — can actively harm your career. The warning signs are consistent worldwide: unsolicited flattering invitations, guaranteed acceptance or absurdly fast turnaround, fake or unverifiable impact metrics, vague or hijacked journal names, no clear peer-review process, and hidden fees revealed only after acceptance.
Run every unfamiliar journal through a simple checklist. Is it indexed in a reputable database for its field? Is it listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals at doaj.org if it is open access? Is the publisher a member of a recognised body such as COPE or OASPA? Can you find named editors with real institutional emails who confirm they serve? The Think. Check. Submit. initiative offers a free multilingual checklist designed for exactly this decision. When you screen candidate journals, log each one in the AcademicStaff publication ledger with its indexing status, APC and review outcome, so you build an institutional memory and never re-evaluate the same outlet twice.
Open Access, APCs and Making It Affordable
Open access widens your readership dramatically, which is a genuine impact advantage — but the gold open-access model, funded by article-processing charges (APCs), can run into thousands of dollars. For academics without generous funding, and especially in lower-income countries, this is a real barrier that predatory publishers exploit by undercutting on price while delivering nothing. You have more options than you think. Many reputable subscription journals offer a free "green" route: you publish normally and deposit the accepted manuscript in your institutional or a subject repository after any embargo.
Investigate fee waivers actively. Major publishers and initiatives such as Research4Life provide automatic or on-request APC waivers for authors in eligible countries, and many funders (UKRI, the ERC, the NIH and others) pay APCs directly or mandate a compliant free route. Diamond open-access journals — free to read and free to publish — are growing across many disciplines and regions. Never let an APC push you toward a predatory outlet; a green-route deposit in a strong subscription journal beats gold open access in a fake one every time.
Weighing Speed, Review Quality and Rejection Risk
Turnaround time matters when a probation clock, a grant report or a competitor is in play, but it trades off against selectivity and prestige. Look for journals that publish their median times to first decision and to publication; reputable outlets increasingly disclose these. Beware the false economy of chasing speed — a fast decision from a journal nobody reads is not a win, and impossibly fast "peer review" is the clearest predatory tell of all.
Rigorous peer review, though slow and sometimes bruising, is a gift: it strengthens your paper and protects your reputation. When you do get reviews, treat even a rejection as free expert feedback that improves the manuscript for the next target on your ladder. Factor typical rejection rates into your timeline so a first rejection is a planned step, not a crisis. For managing the wider workload this competes with, our teaching and assessment guides may help you protect writing time.
Building a Ranked Journal Shortlist
Pull all of this together into a small, ranked shortlist before you write the final draft — not after. For each candidate, record fit with your scope, audience match, indexing and legitimacy status, open-access model and cost (with any waiver), typical time to decision, and realistic acceptance odds. Rank them into your stretch, realistic and fallback tiers. Writing the paper with a specific target's length limits, structure and reference style in mind saves substantial reformatting later.
Revisit the shortlist after each decision rather than starting from scratch: a reject-and-resubmit to the next tier should take days, not weeks, because you planned for it. Keeping this record in your publication ledger turns journal selection from a stressful annual guess into a fast, evidence-based routine — and quietly builds a personal database of which venues in your field are worth your work.
Journal Selection & Predatory-Publisher Screening Checklist
A printable one-page checklist that walks you through audience fit, scope, indexing and legitimacy verification, open-access options and APC waivers — plus a laddered shortlist template so you always submit to the right venue on the first try.
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
How can I quickly tell if a journal is predatory?
Check whether it is indexed in a reputable database for your field, listed in DOAJ if open access, and whether its publisher belongs to a recognised body such as COPE or OASPA. Verify that named editors have real institutional emails and actually serve. Unsolicited flattering invitations, guaranteed rapid acceptance and hidden fees are strong warning signs. The free Think. Check. Submit. checklist is designed for this.
Is a high impact factor the best way to choose a journal?
No. Impact factor is a field-dependent journal average dominated by a few papers and is a weak signal of where your specific work belongs. Start with audience — who needs to read this — and scope fit. Many institutions have signed DORA to discourage using impact factor as a proxy for quality.
I can't afford open-access fees. What are my options?
Use the green route: publish in a reputable subscription journal and deposit your accepted manuscript in a repository. Seek APC waivers, which major publishers and initiatives like Research4Life offer for eligible countries, and check whether your funder pays fees. Diamond open-access journals are free to both read and publish. Never let cost push you toward a predatory outlet.
The AcademicStaff editorial team writes practical, evidence-based guidance for university staff — drawing on sector reporting, funder guidelines and the lived administrative reality of academic work. Every guide is reviewed for accuracy against current Australian higher-education practice.