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

When to Use

• You have a manuscript title/abstract and need a shortlist of suitable journals to submit to.
• You want evidence-based journal matching using similar PubMed literature and journal distribution statistics.
• You need to compare candidate journals by scope fit, open access requirements, and review/publication timelines.
• You must provide a clear matching rationale (why each journal fits) for internal review or co-author alignment.
• You are planning a submission strategy (primary target + backups) and want to highlight risks and alternatives.

Key Features

• Topic- and abstract-driven journal recommendation workflow.
• PubMed-based similar literature search and journal frequency distribution compilation.
• Candidate journal screening using scope, policy constraints (e.g., OA), and practical considerations (e.g., review cycle).
• Structured recommendation output with rationale, risks, and backup options.
• Reusable CSV template for consistent reporting.

Dependencies

• Python 3.9+ (recommended)
• PubMed E-utilities access (NCBI)
  • EMAIL required (per NCBI policy)
  • API_KEY optional (recommended for higher rate limits)

Example Usage

1) Prepare inputs

Have the manuscript title and abstract ready.

2) Configure the script

Open scripts/pubmed_journal_recommender.py and set the CONFIG values:

• EMAIL: your email (required)
• API_KEY: your NCBI API key (optional)
• Output directory (if the script supports/requests it)

3) Run the recommender

python scripts/pubmed_journal_recommender.py

When prompted, paste the manuscript title and abstract. The script will query PubMed for similar records and produce journal statistics.

4) Produce a structured recommendation table

Use the template below to standardize the final output:

• Template: assets/journal_recommendation_template.csv

Fill it with:

• Candidate journals (from the script’s distribution + domain knowledge)
• Matching rationale (scope fit + audience + similarity evidence)
• Constraints (OA, policies)
• Practical notes (review cycle, risks)
• Primary target and backup options

5) Follow the checklist and formatting guidance

For recommended output formats, checklists, and key points, see:

• references/guide.md

Implementation Details

Workflow Overview

1. Topic and Scope Definition

   • Identify the research field, subfield, and intended readership.
   • Confirm journal type preferences and constraints (e.g., OA mandates).

2. Similar Literature Analysis (PubMed)

   • Use the manuscript title/abstract to retrieve similar PubMed records.
   • Aggregate results by journal to compute a distribution (e.g., counts per journal).
   • Prioritize journals that appear frequently among highly relevant records.

3. Journal Screening

   • Cross-check each candidate against:
     • Journal scope/aims
     • Policy requirements (OA, data availability, ethics)
     • Review/publication timelines (if available)
   • Remove journals that are out-of-scope or non-compliant.

4. Recommendation Output

   • Provide a ranked list with:
     • Fit rationale (topic alignment + similarity evidence)
     • Risks (scope mismatch, policy conflicts, timeline concerns)
     • Alternatives (backup journals)

Key Parameters / Notes

• NCBI EMAIL: required to comply with NCBI E-utilities usage policy.
• NCBI API_KEY: optional but recommended to reduce throttling and improve throughput.
• Output structuring: use assets/journal_recommendation_template.csv to ensure consistent fields and downstream usability.

When Not to Use

• Do not proceed when required input files, identifiers, parameters, or context are missing — ask the user to provide them first.
• Do not assume capabilities beyond this skill's declared scope when the user requests external operations or inferences.
• Do not proceed without user confirmation when overwriting existing results, executing high-cost batch operations, or expanding task scope.

Required Inputs

Output Contract

• Primary output: Structured result or target file aligned with this skill's objective.
• Optional output: Intermediate check notes, issue list, supplementary suggestions, or generated file paths.
• Format requirement: Unless the user specifies otherwise, prefer stable, reviewable Markdown or JSON; if the skill's bundled script requires a fixed format, use that format.
• If partially complete: Must explicitly mark as PARTIAL and state which steps are completed and which remain.

Failure Handling

• Missing critical input: Explicitly state which fields, files, or identifiers are missing and pause.
• Script, template, or resource execution failure: Report the failing step, likely cause, and recovery suggestions — do not silently degrade.
• Partial completion only: Return the verified portion first, then list remaining blockers and suggested next steps.

User Checkpoints

• Before executing batch processing, overwriting files, long-running searches, or multi-stage generation, confirm scope and output format with the user.
• Before proceeding when a key judgment is ambiguous, evidence is insufficient, or the workflow is entering the next stage, confirm with the user.

Input Validation

This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of journal-skills 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-skills only handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.

Quick Validation

• Check that key scripts, templates, or reference file paths this skill depends on exist.
• Check that the final output contains the core fields, sections, or files specified for this task.
• Check that results clearly mark assumptions, limitations, and incomplete items.