A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Journal Selection Heuristics Beyond Naivety Among Early Career Researchers in the Global South
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59188/jurnalsosains.v6i7.32772Keywords:
journal selection, decision heuristics, questionable journals, early-career researchers, Global South, research evaluation, systematic reviewAbstract
Novice authors are often assumed to submit to questionable journals because they cannot recognise them, yet recent evidence links publication decisions to institutional incentives, financial constraints and social networks, and the latest synthesis covers literature only to 2020.This systematic review synthesised empirical studies published between January 2020 and March 2026 on how novice scholars in emerging research systems select journals, treating stated criteria as decision heuristics. Following PRISMA 2020 and a SPIDER question, five international databases, four regional databases and grey literature were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and appraised studies (CASP, MMAT), and findings were integrated through thematic synthesis. In total, 44 studies were included (κ = 0.81 at title and abstract screening; κ = 0.78 at full text). Six heuristics recurred: publisher reputation (38 studies), social network guidance (31), financial accessibility (29), institutional incentives (28), editorial speed (26) and thematic fit (23). As the principal contribution, these heuristics were organised into the JSHT-NERS typology, which crosses heuristic source (endogenous or exogenous) with decision orientation (quality or certainty). Evidence gaps were concentrated in Central Asia, the Pacific Islands and Francophone Africa. Identical heuristics produced different outcomes depending on local signal quality, so heuristic reliability appears to be a property of the environment rather than of the author. Verifiable journal lists, predictable publication funding and realistic timelines are more consequential levers than literacy training alone. Findings are limited by English language dominance and self reported primary data, and the typology remains provisional.
References
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
Demir, S. B. (2018). Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1296–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008
Do Carmo, F. A., Rezende, S. O., Paxiúba, C. M. C., & Lobato, F. M. F. (2026). Predatory publishing in the academic landscape: Researchers’ awareness and vulnerabilities. Scientometrics, 131(5), 3029–3054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-05614-0
Eneh, S. C., Onukansi, F. O., Obi, C. G., Anokwuru, C. C., Ikhuoria, O. V, Nwalieji, C. A., & Nwuzoh, M. I. (2025). Article processing charges and health research output in low-income countries: Funding cuts, implications for health policy and system management. Frontiers in Health Services, 5, 1686682. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2025.1686682
Frandsen, T. F. (2019). Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1214
Fry, C. V, Lynham, J., & Tran, S. (2023). Ranking researchers: Evidence from Indonesia. Research Policy, 52(5), 104753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104753
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J. B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M. R., Egger, M., Graham, I. D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K. M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., … Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature, 576(7786), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221
Hosain, M. S. (2023). Why do some authors from developing countries publish papers in predatory journals? Evidence from phone interviews. Equity in Education & Society, 2(3), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/27526461231163328
Inouye, K., & Mills, D. (2021). Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the “predatory publishing” discourse. Learned Publishing, 34(3), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1377
Irawan, D. E., Abraham, J., Ridlo, I. A., Nugraha, H. D., Wekke, I. S., Fuad, A., Rudyawan, A., & Seftyono, C. (2023). Comments on “Ranking researchers: Evidence from Indonesia” by Fry et al. (2023). Research Policy, 52(7), 104817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104817
Klebel, T., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2023). The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00245
Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing, 31(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2022). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3), 859–887. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00213
Mertkan, S., Onurkan Aliusta, G., & Suphi, N. (2021). Profile of authors publishing in “predatory” journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review. Research Evaluation, 30(4), 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab032
Mills, D., Branford, A., Inouye, K., Robinson, N., & Kingori, P. (2021). “Fake” journals and the fragility of authenticity: Citation indexes, “predatory” publishing, and the African research ecosystem. Journal of African Cultural Studies, 33(3), 276–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696815.2020.1864304
Mills, D., & Inouye, K. (2021). Problematizing “predatory publishing”: A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1325
Niles, M. T., Schimanski, L. A., McKiernan, E. C., & Alperin, J. P. (2020). Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. PLOS ONE, 15(3), e0228914. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228914
Noyes, J., Booth, A., Moore, G., Flemming, K., Tunçalp, Ö., & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: Clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl 1), e000893. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Rodrigues, M. L., Savino, W., & Goldenberg, S. (2022). Article-processing charges as a barrier for science in low-to-medium income regions. Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 117, e220064. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760220064
Rowley, J., Sbaffi, L., Sugden, M., & Gilbert, A. (2022). Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions. Journal of Information Science, 48(3), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520958591
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rani Santika, Rafi Farizki
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA). that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
