<![CDATA[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.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
