JAMA
American Medical Association
998
h-index
Journal Guides
Pre-submission checklists for the journals that desk-reject the most.
Field-level reviewer concerns, methodology checklists, and recent representative work for top academic journals, grounded in real data from OpenAlex.
No fabricated acceptance ratesNo mythological reviewer preferencesJust evidence
10
Journals profiled across 5 fields
5
Independent specialist reviewers
< 8 min
From upload to prioritized revisions
OpenAlex
Source for all journal metadata
The directory
Pick your target journal.
Each guide pairs OpenAlex journal metadata with the methodology concerns that decide submissions in that field. Open a guide, then run your manuscript through the panel before you submit.
Medicine 4
Nature Medicine
Nature Portfolio
761
h-index
New England Journal of Medicine
Massachusetts Medical Society
1499
h-index
Science
AAAS
1746
h-index
Biochemistry, genetics & molecular biology 3
Cell
Cell Press
1222
h-index
PLoS ONE
Public Library of Science
596
h-index
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
1165
h-index
Physics & astronomy 1
Nature
Nature Portfolio
1838
h-index
Computer science 1
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
IEEE Computer Society
549
h-index
Social sciences 1
The Lancet
Elsevier BV
1201
h-index
No journals match that search. Try a field name, publisher, or journal title.
Inside every guide
What a journal guide actually contains.
A target-journal checklist is only useful if it reflects how that field is reviewed. Each guide is built from the same three honest inputs, then your manuscript is run against them.
01 · Field concerns
Reviewer concerns by field
The methodology issues that decide submissions in this discipline (reporting, baselines, validation), not invented quirks about what an editor “likes.”
02 · Checklist
A pre-submission checklist
A structured list mapped to the sections reviewers scrutinize, so you can self-audit methods, statistics, and citations before you submit.
03 · Real signal
Representative recent work
Journal metadata and example works pulled from OpenAlex (publisher, field classification, and h-index), so the context is real, not guessed.
Questions
How the guides work.
Honest inputs, evidence-linked findings, and a clear issue map before you risk a desk rejection.
Run a free scanWhat is a PeerPanel journal guide?
Each journal guide collects the field-level reviewer concerns, a methodology checklist, and recent representative work for a specific journal. The data is grounded in OpenAlex — we do not publish fabricated acceptance rates or invented reviewer preferences.
Where does the data come from?
Journal-level metadata such as publisher, field classification, and h-index is sourced from OpenAlex, an open catalog of scholarly works. Checklists reflect common, field-appropriate reviewer concerns rather than guessed editorial quirks.
How does the AI pre-submission review work?
PeerPanel runs your manuscript through five independent specialist reviewers, then forces them to deliberate using page-level evidence. A final editor synthesizes consensus, contested findings, and unique risks into a readiness score — typically in under eight minutes.
Is the readiness scan free?
Yes. Upload a manuscript PDF for a free readiness scan that returns a score plus your top three flags. A complete review with all five agents starts at $10 for students and $14 for everyone else.
Is my manuscript kept private?
Author identity is excluded from the review prompt — no names, affiliations, or prestige signals enter the analysis — and PeerPanel does not retain your data.
Before you submit
Catch the desk-rejection risks first.
Pick your target journal above, then run your manuscript through five specialist reviewers. The free scan maps every issue area in your paper, with results in about two minutes.
PDF up to 50 MB · No data retention · Author-blind protocol