Source: https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills

Journal Matchmaker

Analyzes academic paper abstracts to recommend optimal journals for submission, considering impact factors, scope alignment, and domain expertise.

When to Use

• Use this skill when the task needs Analyzes academic paper abstracts to recommend optimal journals for submission, considering impact factors, scope alignment, and domain expertise.
• Use this skill for evidence insight tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format.
• Use this skill when you need a documented fallback path for missing inputs, execution errors, or partial evidence.

Key Features

• Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Analyzes academic paper abstracts to recommend optimal journals for submission, considering impact factors, scope alignment, and domain expertise.
• Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py.
• Reference material available in references/ for task-specific guidance.
• Structured execution path designed to keep outputs consistent and reviewable.

Dependencies

See ## Prerequisites above for related details.

• Python: 3.10+. Repository baseline for current packaged skills.
• dataclasses: unspecified. Declared in requirements.txt.

Example Usage

See ## Usage above for related details.

cd "20260318/scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/journal-matchmaker"
python -m py_compile scripts/main.py
python scripts/main.py --help

Example run plan:

1. Confirm the user input, output path, and any required config values.
2. Edit the in-file CONFIG block or documented parameters if the script uses fixed settings.
3. Run python scripts/main.py with the validated inputs.
4. Review the generated output and return the final artifact with any assumptions called out.

Implementation Details

See ## Workflow above for related details.

• Execution model: validate the request, choose the packaged workflow, and produce a bounded deliverable.
• Input controls: confirm the source files, scope limits, output format, and acceptance criteria before running any script.
• Primary implementation surface: scripts/main.py.
• Reference guidance: references/ contains supporting rules, prompts, or checklists.
• Parameters to clarify first: input path, output path, scope filters, thresholds, and any domain-specific constraints.
• Output discipline: keep results reproducible, identify assumptions explicitly, and avoid undocumented side effects.

Quick Check

Use this command to verify that the packaged script entry point can be parsed before deeper execution.

python -m py_compile scripts/main.py

Audit-Ready Commands

Use these concrete commands for validation. They are intentionally self-contained and avoid placeholder paths.

python -m py_compile scripts/main.py
python scripts/main.py --help

Workflow

1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work.
2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported assumptions.
3. Use the packaged script path or the documented reasoning path with only the inputs that are actually available.
4. Return a structured result that separates assumptions, deliverables, risks, and unresolved items.
5. If execution fails or inputs are incomplete, switch to the fallback path and state exactly what blocked full completion.

Use Cases

• Find the best-fit journal for a new manuscript
• Identify high-impact factor journals in specific research areas
• Compare journal scopes against paper content
• Discover domain-specific publication venues

Usage

python scripts/main.py --abstract "Your paper abstract text here" [--field "field_name"] [--min-if 5.0] [--count 5]

Parameters

Examples

# Basic usage
python scripts/main.py --abstract "This paper presents a novel deep learning approach..."

# Specify field and minimum impact factor
python scripts/main.py --abstract "abstract.txt" --field "ai" --min-if 10.0 --count 10

# Output as JSON for integration
python scripts/main.py --abstract "..." --format json

How It Works

1. Abstract Analysis: Extracts key terms, methodology, and research focus
2. Field Classification: Identifies the primary research domain
3. Journal Matching: Compares content against journal scopes and aims
4. Impact Factor Filtering: Applies IF constraints if specified
5. Ranking: Scores and ranks journals by relevance and impact

Technical Details

• Difficulty: Medium
• Approach: Keyword extraction + journal database matching
• Data Source: Journal metadata from references/journals.json
• Algorithm: TF-IDF + cosine similarity for scope matching

References

• references/journals.json - Journal database with impact factors and scopes
• references/fields.json - Research field classifications
• references/scoring_weights.json - Algorithm tuning parameters

Notes

• Journal database should be updated periodically (quarterly recommended)
• Impact factor data sourced from Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
• Scope descriptions parsed from official journal websites
• For emerging fields, manual curation may be needed

Risk Assessment

Security Checklist

• No hardcoded credentials or API keys
• No unauthorized file system access (../)
• Output does not expose sensitive information
• Prompt injection protections in place
• Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)
• Output directory restricted to workspace
• Script execution in sandboxed environment
• Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)
• Dependencies audited

Prerequisites

# Python dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt

Evaluation Criteria

Success Metrics

• Successfully executes main functionality
• Output meets quality standards
• Handles edge cases gracefully
• Performance is acceptable

Test Cases

1. Basic Functionality: Standard input → Expected output
2. Edge Case: Invalid input → Graceful error handling
3. Performance: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time

Lifecycle Status

• Current Stage: Draft
• Next Review Date: 2026-03-06
• Known Issues: None
• Planned Improvements:
  • Performance optimization
  • Additional feature support

Output Requirements

Every final response should make these items explicit when they are relevant:

• Objective or requested deliverable
• Inputs used and assumptions introduced
• Workflow or decision path
• Core result, recommendation, or artifact
• Constraints, risks, caveats, or validation needs
• Unresolved items and next-step checks

Error Handling

• If required inputs are missing, state exactly which fields are missing and request only the minimum additional information.
• If the task goes outside the documented scope, stop instead of guessing or silently widening the assignment.
• If scripts/main.py fails, report the failure point, summarize what still can be completed safely, and provide a manual fallback.
• Do not fabricate files, citations, data, search results, or execution outcomes.

Input Validation

This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of journal-matchmaker and include enough context to complete the workflow safely.

Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond:

journal-matchmaker only handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.

Response Template

Use the following fixed structure for non-trivial requests:

1. Objective
2. Inputs Received
3. Assumptions
4. Workflow
5. Deliverable
6. Risks and Limits
7. Next Checks

If the request is simple, you may compress the structure, but still keep assumptions and limits explicit when they affect correctness.