---
id: venue-analyzer
stage: A_framing
description: "Analyze venue fit, formatting constraints, and reviewer expectations to scope and position a paper for a target publication."
inputs:
  - type: UserQuery
    description: "Candidate venue(s) and paper type"
  - type: RQSet
    description: "Research questions or contribution type"
outputs:
  - type: VenueAnalysis
    artifact: "framing/venue_analysis.md"
constraints:
  - "Must extract length, format, citation style, anonymization requirements"
  - "Must identify must-not-fail items for the chosen venue"
  - "Must assess reviewer reward function (novelty vs rigor vs artifact)"
failure_modes:
  - "Venue information not publicly available"
  - "Paper type mismatch with venue scope"
  - "Ignoring recent scope changes or special issue criteria"
tools: [filesystem, scholarly-search]
tags: [framing, venue, journal-selection, formatting]
domain_aware: true
---

# Venue Analyzer Skill

Analyze venue fit and constraints so the paper is scoped and written to match reviewer expectations before a word is written.

## Purpose

Analyze venue fit, formatting constraints, and reviewer expectations to scope and position a paper for a target publication.

## Related Task IDs

- `A5` (venue analysis)

## Output (contract path)

- `RESEARCH/[topic]/framing/venue_analysis.md`

## When to Use

- At the very start of a project (affects RQ scope, methods choice, page limits)
- When deciding between 2–4 candidate venues
- After a rejection — to reposition for a different venue

## Inputs

- `UserQuery`: Candidate venue(s) and paper type
- `RQSet`: Research questions or contribution type
- If a required input is missing or insufficient, write a gap note under `RESEARCH/[topic]/context/gap_notes.md` and ask for the missing artifact instead of inventing content.
- Treat literature, data, citations, and project files as evidence sources; keep unsupported assumptions visibly marked.

## Process

### Step 1: Collect Venue Intelligence

For each candidate venue, extract:

#### Basic Profile

| Dimension | What to Find | Where to Look |
|-----------|-------------|---------------|
| **Scope & Aims** | Topics, methods, disciplinary focus | "About" / "Aims & Scope" page |
| **Paper types accepted** | Full paper, short paper, research letter, review, methods paper | Author guidelines |
| **Impact metrics** | JIF, CiteScore, h-index, acceptance rate | Journal website, Scopus, Google Scholar Metrics |
| **Review model** | Single-blind, double-blind, open review | Author guidelines |
| **Turnaround** | Desk-reject rate, time to first decision | Editorial reports, Publons, peer reports |
| **OA policy** | Gold OA, hybrid, green, APC cost | Sherpa/RoMEO, journal website |
| **Indexing** | WoS, Scopus, SSCI, SCI, ESCI, ABDC, ABS, FT50, CNKI | Multiple databases |

#### Formatting Constraints

| Constraint | Details | Impact on Writing |
|-----------|---------|-------------------|
| **Page/word limit** | e.g., 12,000 words / 40 pages / 8 pages + refs | Determines depth of each section |
| **Abstract format** | Structured (Background/Methods/Results/Conclusions) vs narrative | Affects `/paper-write` F6 output |
| **Reference style** | APA 7th, Chicago, Vancouver, IEEE, numbered | Set before writing → feeds `citation-formatter` |
| **Figure/table policy** | Max count, resolution, color charges, format | Affects figure-specifier decisions |
| **Anonymization** | Double-blind: remove author info, self-citation handling | Must scrub before submission |
| **Data/code policy** | Required, encouraged, or optional | Feeds D3 + I4 decisions |
| **Supplementary materials** | Format, page limit, separate file requirements | Plan appendix content early |
| **Section structure** | Required sections (e.g., IMRAD, or custom) | Must match expected layout |
| **Ethics statement** | Required, recommended, or field-specific | Feeds D1 ethics check |
| **AI disclosure** | Required, recommended, or no policy yet | Draft early; requirements are expanding |

### Step 2: Analyze the Reviewer Reward Function

Different venues reward different strengths. Infer the reward function from recent publications:

| Dimension | Weight | How to Infer |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| **Novelty** | High / Medium / Low | Do published papers emphasize "first to show" or "better understanding"? |
| **Methodological rigor** | High / Medium / Low | Do papers have extensive robustness sections? Are null results published? |
| **Theoretical contribution** | High / Medium / Low | Are papers expected to extend or build theory, or can they be empirical-only? |
| **Practical relevance** | High / Medium / Low | Are managerial/policy implications required or perfunctory? |
| **Artifact quality** | High / Medium / Low | Does the venue require code, data, replication packages? |
| **Writing quality** | High / Medium / Low | Is "well-written" a frequent review criterion? |

**Method**: Read 3–5 recent papers in the venue similar to your topic. Note:
- How long is each section (proportional emphasis)?
- What do Discussion sections emphasize?
- Are limitations perfunctory or substantial?
- How theoretical vs empirical are the contributions?

### Step 3: Identify Must-Not-Fail Items

Every venue has implicit "desk-reject triggers." Common ones:

| Must-Not-Fail | How to Check | Consequence |
|---------------|-------------|-------------|
| **Scope match** | Your RQ fits the published scope statement | Desk reject if out of scope |
| **Contribution clarity** | First 2 pages clearly state what's new | Reviewer confusion → reject |
| **Method appropriateness** | Method fits venue norms (e.g., MIS Quarterly expects rigorous quantitative or well-justified qualitative) | "Wrong venue" verdict |
| **Length compliance** | Within word/page limits | Administrative desk reject |
| **Anonymization** | No author-identifying information in blind review | Administrative desk reject |
| **Reference recency** | Cites recent work (last 2–3 years) in the venue | "Not current" verdict |
| **Self-citation ratio** | Not excessive (<15% of references typically) | May break anonymization |
| **Reporting guideline** | Venue-required checklist submitted (CONSORT, PRISMA, etc.) | Administrative desk reject |

### Step 4: Rank and Recommend

For 2–4 candidate venues, fill in the comparison:

| Dimension | Venue A | Venue B | Venue C |
|-----------|---------|---------|---------|
| Scope fit | ✅ Core | ⚠️ Peripheral | ✅ Core |
| Method fit | ✅ Strong | ✅ Strong | ⚠️ Theory-heavy |
| Reviewer reward | Rigor | Novelty | Theory |
| Acceptance rate | ~15% | ~8% | ~20% |
| Turnaround (months) | 3–4 | 6–8 | 2–3 |
| Word limit | 12,000 | 8,000 | 15,000 |
| Impact | JIF 5.2 | FT50 | ABDC A |
| Recommendation | **Primary** | Backup | Backup |

Justify the recommendation by connecting scope + method + reward function + your paper's strengths.

## Output Contract

- `VenueAnalysis`: write `RESEARCH/[topic]/framing/venue_analysis.md`.
- Separate finding, interpretation, and implication in the final artifact.
- Do not invent citations, data, sample sizes, statistical results, or reviewer comments.
- Apply `references/academic-output-rubric.md` before finalizing scholarly prose or review artifacts.

## Quality Bar

The venue analysis is **ready** when:

- [ ] At least 2 venues compared with full profiles
- [ ] Formatting constraints extracted and documented
- [ ] Reviewer reward function inferred from reading recent publications
- [ ] Must-not-fail items identified per venue
- [ ] Clear recommendation with justification
- [ ] Formatting decisions (reference style, abstract format, section structure) propagated to downstream skills

## Minimal Output Format

```markdown
# Venue Analysis

## Candidate Venues

### Venue A: [Name]
- **Scope fit**: ...
- **Paper type**: ...
- **Review model**: ...
- **Impact**: JIF = ..., acceptance rate = ...

#### Formatting Constraints
| Dimension | Requirement |
|-----------|-------------|

#### Reviewer Reward Function
| Dimension | Weight |
|-----------|--------|

#### Must-Not-Fail Items
1. ...
2. ...

### Venue B: [Name]
...

## Comparison Matrix

| Dimension | Venue A | Venue B | Venue C |
|-----------|---------|---------|---------|

## Recommendation
**Primary venue**: [name] — [justification]
**Backup venue**: [name] — [rationale for backup]

## Downstream Propagation
- Citation style: [APA 7th / ...]
- Abstract format: [structured / narrative]
- Section structure: [IMRAD / custom]
- Word limit: [n]
```

## Common Pitfalls

| Pitfall | Problem | Fix |
|---------|---------|-----|
| 只关注 IF | 忽视了 scope match 和 audience | 并行评估 fit / format / reputation |
| 格式要求遗漏 | 被要求大改格式 | 投稿前完整核查 author guidelines |
| 忽视审稿速度 | 项目 deadline 前无法完成 R&R | 考虑 first-decision turnaround |
| 过度乐观定级 | 方法/数据撑不住 top journal | 用 desk-reject 风险评估 |
| 忽视 OA 费用 | 预算不够 APC | 预先核查 OA 政策和费用 |

## Geoeconomics Overlay

### Activation
Apply this overlay when `venue-analyzer` is used for geoeconomics manuscripts targeting international security, IPE, political economy, global policy, or related interdisciplinary venues.

### Required Context
- Require target venue, paper type, instrument, sender, target, response channel, evidence type, and strategic objective.
- Require whether the manuscript speaks mainly to international security, IPE, economics, finance, trade, or policy audiences.
- Require the current balance between scholarly contribution and policy relevance.

### Subject-Specific Procedure
1. Classify venue fit by contribution type: security strategy, IPE mechanism, political economy design, market evidence, or policy synthesis.
2. Check whether the paper has enough economic instrument evidence for geoeconomics rather than general geopolitical commentary.
3. Match claim strength to venue expectations for causal design, case evidence, archival evidence, network measurement, or policy relevance.
4. Identify the most likely desk-reject reason for each candidate venue.
5. Recommend venue positioning language that separates strategic claim, economic evidence, and policy implication.

### Reviewer-Risk Checks
- Check whether international-security venues would see too little security contribution.
- Check whether IPE or economics venues would see too little mechanism or identification evidence.
- Check whether policy venues would require clearer implications and less overclaiming.

### Output Requirements
- The venue analysis must include `Venue Family`, `Primary Audience`, `Evidence Standard`, `Desk-Reject Risk`, and `Positioning Revision`.
- Each venue recommendation must state which geoeconomic evidence is strong and which claim must be narrowed.
- Missing venue-specific standards must be recorded as a profile gap.

### Blocked Conditions
- Block venue recommendations when the manuscript's evidence type is unknown.
- Block strategic competition positioning when the target venue would require direct security or statecraft evidence.
- Do not recommend a top venue based only on topical salience.
