Editorial Board Members of Potential Predatory Journals: Who Are They and What Do They Think?

The composition of a journal's editorial board members (EBMs) is closely tied to its overall quality. However, little is empirically known about the EBMs of potential predatory journals (PPJs). The ongoing debate is that PPJs tend to have EBMs who are fake, non-existent, uninformed, have limited contact information, are located in specific countries, and lack substantial academic status or credentials. Despite the prevalent assertions, most of these claims about the EBMs of PPJs lack scientific validation. Furthermore, the growth in scholarship on PPJs has been disproportionately focused on the concerns and practices of outsiders, leaving the actual experiences and perspectives of the EBMs of PPJs largely invisible. The present research, comprised of two main phases, aims to address these important gaps in the literature. In Phase One, we collected extensive descriptive data on the declared and publicly available characteristics of all 1,260 EBMs across 63 language and linguistics PPJs. In Phase Two, we surveyed the EBMs of these 63 PPJs to explore their beliefs, experiences, and challenges. The quantitative findings broadly supported common assumptions about EBMs of PPJs. However, the qualitative data revealed a more complex picture, with EBMs' commitments, practices, and challenges varying based on their conceptualizations of predatory publishing and their unique career paths. The study discusses the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.