Rethinking Journal Selection: An Author-Centric, Multi-Index Framework for Context-Sensitive Evaluation

Journal selection requires authors to balance scholarly quality, accessibility constraints, disciplinary fit, and global visibility considerations. Conventional journal evaluation systems rely heavily on prestige-based indicators, often overlooking the diverse decision contexts faced by authors at different career stages and institutional environments. Our study introduces the Author-Centric Journal Selection Index (AJSI), a multidimensional framework designed to generate journal recommendations tailored to distinct author profiles rather than a single universal ranking. Using open bibliometric data covering 63,016 journals, our framework integrates four indices; accessibility, quality, scope and relevance; and operationalizes five representative author profiles: Early-Career, Prestige-Seeking, Global Visibility-Oriented, Balanced Strategic and Global South. Each profile reflects a different publication decision logic and emphasizes feasibility, recognition, international reach or resource constraints. Results show that journal suitability varies systematically across author profiles. Early-Career and Global South authors prioritize accessibility and legitimacy, leading to different journal choices compared with prestige-oriented authors, who concentrate on established high-impact outlets. Profiles focusing on feasibility and access also show greater exposure to structural risks while relevance-oriented profiles maintain more stable journal selections across disciplines. Despite these differences, overall journal tiers remain consistent which suggests that profile-specific prioritization reshapes journal recommendations without destabilizing the broader evaluation structure. These findings demonstrate that journal selection is fundamentally context-dependent and shaped by author circumstances. The AJSI framework provides a transparent and adaptable decision-support mechanism that complements traditional bibliometric indicators and supports more equitable and context-sensitive publishing decisions by explicitly incorporating author priorities into the evaluation process.