Investigating the Experiences of Editorial Board Members in Potentially Predatory Language and Linguistics Journals

A journal's quality is typically tied to the composition of its editorial board members (EBMs). However, very little is known about the experiences of EBMs of potential predatory journals (PPJs). Most research on PPJs has mainly examined concerns and viewpoints of external parties, often neglecting a deeper understanding from an “inside” emic perspective of their EBMs. The present comparative multi-case study, therefore, aimed to address this important gap by conducting in-depth interviews and multiple follow-ups with four EBMs of PPJs in language and linguistics. Analyzed through thematic analysis, our findings revealed similarities and differences in terms of these EBMs’ motivations, perspectives and experiences. EBM1's association with the PPJ, spurred by an interest in Pakistani literature, evolved from initial goodwill to critical scrutiny, leading to his decision to disengage due to the journal's quality concerns. EBM2 challenged the reliance on Beall's list for determining journal legitimacy, advocating for a nuanced evaluation of article quality over journal reputation, amidst concerns of academic publishing monopolies and the potential for journals' growth. EBM3 expressed regret over her premature involvement with the PPJ and argued for a discerning approach to avoid indiscriminately labeling emerging journals as predatory. EBM4 decried the unethical use of his name by the PPJ without consent, highlighting the journal's predatory practices. The findings underscore the complexities of the PPJ issue and urge increased awareness as well as joint efforts to address them.