Hello Ajay,

One comparative review I found indicated that virtually all of the software packages evaluated yielded near identical results (though the focus was on covariance-based SEM): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2012.708641?journalCode=utas20

Here's a more recent (2017) comparison, but looking at how some of the software packages handle missing data and differing algorithms for the maximum likelihood estimation: http://pubs.sciepub.com/amp/5/3/2/index.html

Good luck with your work.

I'd assume that peer reviewers don't make decisons based on software type but on how convincingly and detailed the statistical analysis is justified, explained and presented in relation to the research problem and hypotheses.

Good luck!

@Ajay Both of them have some advantages and disadvantages over each other. However, in recent past, Smart-PLS has been used widely across various research domains because of its ability to handle categorical variables, no distribution assumption, ability to work fine with shorter sample size etc. which AMOS lacks.

AMOS, EQS, lavaan package in R, LISREL, Mplus, Mx, and SAS CALIS procedure are just a few of the software packages that can be used to estimate typical structural equation models (SEMs). They yield similar results for most common applications. For academic journals, and since software packages are continually evolving, authors should point out which SEM software was utilized and which version of that software was used. The overview by Tarka (2018), attached and referenced below, could be of interest.

Tarka, P. (2018). An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 52(1), 313–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8

Article An overview of structural equation modeling: its beginnings,...

Good luck,

Top High rank Journal concern with the substance of the work rather than software used. Once your work is new with huge contribution in the field and address emerging issues, it will be definitely be considered. SO in a nut shell, quality and presentation matters for top journal not packages.

I hope my response is useful