I pasted the abstract of the lapset submitted paper in all four systems, including the one in comments. This is a five-country multicenter study on a particular type of cancer.
Edanz performed modreately well. The four top suggestions labeled in green included two of the four first choices that we discussed before submitting our manuscript. Thereafter the quality deteriorated rapidly. However it only considered one subspecialty in the Main suggestions. I give this two stars.
Elseviers system was a great disappointment, it was essentially worthless. The top ten suggestions included none of our four first choice candidates although one of them was an Elsevier journal. Only two of the ten would have been even possible, albeit with a far lower impact factor. The rest were cancer journals dedicated to other body parts that would never have considered publishing our paper. And one of the two possible ones was an Egyptian journal without impact factor that would have however accepted 60 percent of manuscripts. No stars!
Jane was surprisinly good. It also came up with two of our actual choices and moreover proposed top journals in two other fields that certainly could be considered for this manuscript depending whom you see as your main audience. Only one of top ten suggestions was unacceptable. Four stars, this one could think out of the box.
Editage was also reasonable. It picked one of our four choices but it was not on the top. It also identified the two other disciplines and actually proposed these as first options. A few options were clear misses. Two stars, because no impact factors, you would need to look these up separately.
These latter two tools based on this trial might be useful for suggesting possibilities accross disciplines in initial stages of choosing the forum for a multidisciplinary publication but in the end you will need a specialist in that discipline to suggest the final choice if it is not your own area of expertice.
