In an ideal world, every major decision would unfold with the luxury of foresight, meticulous planning and an exhaustive list of all your best options. Think choosing a home or deciding to add a family member: milestone events where details matter and stakes are high. Picking the right journal for your research can feel akin to finding a home for your intellectual offspring. (Sometimes multiple offspring with different sets of parents!) It’s a decision that demands both strategic alignment and sometimes, a bit of serendipity. Even with careful planning, you may find yourself seeking assistance, navigating through options, doubting yourself, and finally honing in on the choice that feels right —often under the pressing weight of a deadline.
And sometimes decisions are made for you.
Last year the editor of a journal invited me to respond to an article that had been retracted (at my request). I thus wrote my response article with a very specific journal (the Writing Center Journal) and readership in mind. However, out of curiosity, I wondered if AI would choose the very same journal it was meant for. So I fed it (or “prompted” it) just my abstract and outline, and here is what Claude.ai produced:
This was interesting. In my attempts with other journal matching apps/sites, Writing Center Journal had never come up. So I started to do a little more exploring.
Interesting potential?
I gave Claude a digital pat on the back (“Wow – good job. You chose exactly the journal I had in mind., the top journal in the field“). Yet for me it wasn’t really a game-changer. Based solely on my abstract, the LLM had been able to identify good journal candidates – but mostly “low-hanging fruit.” Basically, Claude hadn’t really show me much that I couldn’t have already thought of by myself. But then I wondered: What would happen if I gave Claude more? So, since my article was about to be published anyway, I attached the full draft. And then the choices got a little more interesting:
Again, Claude recommended journals that resonated with what would be my own choices—journals like Praxis and CCC, which are central to my field yet might not surface on traditional journal-matching tools like those from Clarivate Analytics or the Journal Author Name Estimator (JANE). But now Claude listed other journals I was less or even unfamiliar with, like Across the Disciplines and the International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. I checked those out – they’re both legit. Most importantly, they would both be great fits for the manuscript.
So, should I try this at home?
As a reminder, this was not a validation exercise, but just an exploration into potential. But I definitely saw that potential. Claude not only showed me what I already knew (which itself could be a good reminder), but it revealed gaps in my knowledge. It went beyond the low-hanging fruit that we all tend to go for, especially when strapped for time.
Traditional apps and platforms designed to help you match your research to a journal are sometimes useful, but often miss out on certain titles due to the way they are indexed. They may inadvertently omit publications that could be the perfect home for your research. My experience with Claude revealed an LLM’s ability to (potentially) bridge that gap.
If you decide to try out AI for journal recommendations, consider it as part of a broader strategy that may include library resources, expert consultations (yes, that would also include me!), and of course your own critical judgment. Good journal choices, just like choosing a new home, usually weigh several factors (e.g. if it will reach the intended audience, if it will count positively towards your CV, if there are APCs, etc.). And if you venture down this AI path to see how well an LLM like Claude or similar can help you narrow down a journal choice, be sure to
- Do you due diligence – make sure that the journal is indeed a good match by looking carefully at the site, author guidelines, past issues, and so on;
- Tell me about it! (Scroll down to the comments or send me an email.) I’d be keen to hear whether the AI’s recommendations hold as true for you as they did for me, and especially if you also find some potentially interesting fruit on high.
