# Venue Landscape and Publication-Chance Estimate

> Metric และ venue status เปลี่ยนได้ ทุกค่าต้องมี source, year/access date และ category ห้ามให้ AI เติมค่าที่หาไม่พบ การประเมิน High/Medium/Low เป็น readiness estimate ไม่ใช่คำรับรอง acceptance

## 1. Research direction

- Working title/topic:
- Problem/RQ:
- Candidate contribution:
- Intended audience/community:
- Preferred output: journal article / conference paper / workshop / poster / other
- First-choice venue and reason:

## 2. Journal candidates

อย่างน้อย 1 target + 3 alternatives

| Role | Journal | Official scope/article type | Closest papers in venue | h-index (source/year) | Q system/year/category | Indexing/TCI status | Verified acceptance/timeline/APC | Fit gaps | Source/access date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | | | | | | | | | |
| Ambitious alternative | | | | | | | | | |
| Realistic alternative | | | | | | | | | |
| Fallback alternative | | | | | | | | | |

Rules:

- Write `SJR Qx`, `CiteScore Qx`, or `JCR Qx`; never write Q without system/year/category.
- TCI Tier is recorded as `TCI Tier 1/2/3`, not converted into Q.
- If h-index or acceptance rate is unavailable, use `not publicly verified`.

## 3. Conference candidates

อย่างน้อย 2 Thailand + 2 international เมื่อ conference เป็นช่องทางที่มีความหมายต่อสาขา

| Region | Conference/event + edition/year | Organizer | Scope/track | Paper type | Proceedings/indexing/archival status | Verified series metric, if applicable | Verified acceptance rate | Deadline/location/cost | Fit gaps | Official source/access date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thailand | | | | | | | | | | |
| Thailand | | | | | | | | | | |
| International | | | | | | | | | | |
| International | | | | | | | | | | |

Do not force journal Q/h-index onto a conference event. If a proceedings series has a metric, record the series and coverage separately.

## 4. Publication-chance rubric

Score each venue using current evidence.

| Venue | Scope/audience 0–2 | Novelty/contribution 0–2 | Design/evidence 0–2 | Output readiness 0–2 | Selectivity/feasibility 0–2 | Critical gate | Total | Chance H/M/L | Confidence H/M/L | Rationale |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|---:|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | |

- `High`: 8–10, no critical gate
- `Medium`: 5–7 or clearly fixable gaps
- `Low`: 0–4 or any out-of-scope, major evidence/design, compliance, deadline, or resource blocker

Confidence must be lowered when official/reliable selectivity evidence is unavailable.

## 5. Decision

- Working target venue:
- Why it is the best current fit:
- Alternative if design/claim narrows:
- Alternative if timeline/resource prevents target submission:
- Top evidence/design gaps to close:
  1.
  2.
  3.
- Metrics/status that must be rechecked before submission:
- What AI must not claim or invent: