Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals

Abstract

This study examined editorial differences between potential predatory and mainstream journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. A keyword search of the relevant journals on Beall's updated list of potential predatory journals led to a sample of 66 journals. An equal number of journals were selected from those indexed by Web of Science (WoS) via stratified random sampling. Analyses showed that the two groups of journals did not differ in terms of certain publication frequencies, mean number of annual articles, mention of peer review time, availability of the author guides and aims/scope sections, absence of editorial boards, mean number of editorial board numbers, article processing charge (APC) for open access, claimed indexation by ERIC and DOAJ and availability of ISSNs. However, these two groups of journals differed markedly in terms of contact information, years of editorial activity, certain publication frequencies, specialized focus, mention of acceptance rate, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editors-in-chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editors, relevance of the editorial board members' expertise, mean APC, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/Scopus/WoS, reporting of fake impact factors, provision of Index Copernicus Value, claimed COPE membership, availability of ethical guidelines and various policies and existence of DOIs.These differences can be used as warning signs that a journal may not be legitimate.

Publishing in predatory language and linguistics journals: Authors’ experiences and motivations

“…First, our findings highlight the need to educate graduate students and novice academics about predatory journals and publishing ethics. Such education can be provided through workshops or in research courses that alert them to the tell-tale signs of PPJs (see Nejadghanbar & Hu [2022a] for a list of 19 such signs), introduce the participants to tools such as Beall's updated list of predatory journals (https://beallslist.net/) and publishing guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), develop their information literacy about scholarly publishing, foster their publishing and research ethics, and raise their awareness of the long-term negative effects of publishing in PPJs on themselves, their institutions, and academia. We understand that with the more immediate need to land a job, hold on to a position, or secure a promotion, these appeals to education and ethics alone are unlikely to work wonders.…”

“…We used the list of 66 active language and linguistics PPJs collected in a previous study to identify authors and extract their email addresses (see Nejadghanbar & Hu [2022a] details on how the PPJs were identified and selected). We dropped three journals from the list because they were indexed by Scopus or ERIC.…”

“…Potential predatory journals (PPJs) in language and linguistics are large in number and they publish, on average, more articles annually than mainstream SSCI-indexed journals do (Nejadghanbar & Hu, 2022a). This shows that predatory publishing in language and linguistics is by no means an insignificant issue.…”

“…Predatory journals have grown exponentially and become a major threat to scholarly publishing (Nejadghanbar & Hu, 2022a). Such journals ‘prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices’ (Grudniewicz et al, 2019, p. 210).…”

“…Two empirical studies examined the editorial differences between PPJs and legitimate journals in language and linguistics. Nejadghanbar and Hu (2022a) compared the editorial features of PPJs and mainstream SSCI-indexed journals, and Nejadghanbar and Hu (2022b) examined the editorial differences between PPJs and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Despite our best efforts, we have not located any studies examining language and linguistics academics’ experiences with and motivations for publishing in PPJs.…”