More Than Meets the Eye: A Comparative Multi-Case Study on Editorial Board Members of Potential Predatory Journals in Language and Linguistics

A journal’s quality is typically tied to the composition of its editorial board members (EBMs). However, very little is known about the lived experiences of scholars listed as EBMs of potential predatory journals (PPJs). The prevailing body of research on PPJs has examined the concerns and viewpoints of external parties, often neglecting not only a deeper understanding from an insider, emic perspective of their EBMs but also the important disciplinary factors that shape these experiences. The present comparative multi-case study, therefore, aimed to address this important gap by constructing detailed narrative cases of four EBMs of PPJs in language and linguistics. Thematic analysis revealed that EBM experiences followed two primary pathways. For most, a narrative arc began with initial affiliation based on goodwill, progressed to a critical turning point, and culminated in outcomes ranging from disengagement to advocacy for systemic reform. In a critical contrasting case, however, the journey began not with direct involvement but with the discovery of unauthorized use of one’s name, moving to public condemnation. These findings collectively highlight the need for more sophisticated, evidence-based evaluations that acknowledge the spectrum of vulnerabilities—from scholarly goodwill to professional visibility—that PPJs exploit, while incorporating the insider-led demand for nuanced criteria that look beyond simplistic blacklists.