Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: It is of great importance for researchers to publish research results in high-quality journals. However, it is often challenging to choose a most suitable publication venue given the exponential growth of journals and conferences. Although recommender systems have achieved success in promoting movies, music and products, very few studies have explored recommendation of publication venues, especially for biomedical research. No recommender system exists that can specifically recommend journals in PubMed, the largest collection of biomedical literature. Objective: We proposed a publication recommender system, named Pubmender, to suggest suitable PubMed journals based on a paper’s Methods: In Pubmender, pretrained word2vec is first used to construct the start-up feature space. Then, a deep convolutional neural network is constructed to achieve the high-level representation of abstracts, and a fully connected softmax model is adopted to recommend the best journals. Results: We collected 880,165 papers from 1,130 journals in PubMed Central (PMC) and extracted abstracts from these papers as an empirical dataset. We compared different recommendation models such as Cavnar-Trenkleon on the Microsoft Academic Search engine (MAS), a collaborative-filtering-based recommender system on the digital library of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and CiteSeer. We found the accuracy of our system for the top-10 recommendtations to be 87.0%, 22.9% and 196.0% higher than those of MAS, ACM, and CiteSeer, respectively. In addition, we compared our system with Journal Finder and Journal Suggester, which are tools of Elsevier and Springer to help authors find suitable journals in their series. The results revealed that the accuracy of our system was 329% higher than Journal Finder and 406% higher than Journal Suggester for the top-10 recommendations. Our web service is freely available at http://www.keaml.cn:8081/. Conclusions: Our deep learning based recommender system can suggest an appropriate journal list to help biomedical scientists and clinicians to choose suitable venues for their papers.