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

Abstract

This study examines the experiences and motivations of language and linguistics academics who have published in potential predatory journals (PPJs). A questionnaire was administered to 2,793 academics with publications in 63 language and linguistics PPJs, and 213 of them returned their responses. A subsample of the respondents (n = 21) also contributed qualitative data through semi-structured interviews or email responses to open-ended questions. Analyses of the survey data found that the authors were mainly from Asia, mostly had a doctorate, chose the PPJs chiefly for fast publication and/or meeting degree or job requirements, were predominantly of the opinion that the PPJs were reputable, and commonly reported positive impacts of publishing in the PPJs on their studies or academic careers. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data revealed five main themes: unawareness, unrelenting publication pressures, low information literacy, social identity threat, and failure to publish in top-tier journals.

Now you have to pay! A deeper look at publishing practices of predatory journals

“…As for the review period, 16 journals made their decision in less than 2 weeks with only two rejections proffered. Although speed of turnaround is the most prevalent reason given by researchers for promoting their research in predatory journals (Nejadghanbar et al, 2023), this shows little concern for the research process and immediately calls into question the entire review process (Shen & Björk, 2015). Further evidence for this assumption is that the entire process seemed somewhat vague and in many cases completely opaque as it was difficult to ascertain whether or not a thorough review had even been conducted.…”

“…In conclusion, our research has identified inexcusable practices by various journals; however, it needs to be pointed out that there is another side to this coin—namely that if researchers knowingly support suspect journals, the problems will continue. Unfortunately, there is widespread evidence that researchers are still being taken for a ride by predatory journals on a grand scale, and that is truly regrettable (Nejadghanbar et al, 2023). On the other hand, we can say with confidence that many of these journals flourish (at least for a season) solely on the basis of offering a relatively pain‐free avenue to achieving publication, with the promise of a rapid turn‐around without a real vetting process.…”

“…Drawing any conclusions from the research would have been irresponsible and highly inappropriate. To briefly sum up, examining how and in what manner the journals responded to our manuscript was, perhaps, the biggest of the red flags, inasmuch as it pointed to the motivations of these journals-namely, the lack of importance paid to the scholarship of the article submitted and conversely, the emphasis they placed on securing payment (see especially Nejadghanbar et al, 2023).…”

“…With the swelling interest in unethical practices by publishers, one might think that predatory practices would be on the decline; however, according to Linacre's (2019) analysis of Cabell's compilation of blacklisted journals, the number of suspect journals has recently surpassed the 12,000 journal mark and continues to expand at an ever‐increasing rate. These pursuits have been bolstered by recent research, which has not only indicated that the number of journals engaging in questionable practices is on the rise but that researchers are supporting these journals via their research submissions to such an extent that in specific fields, more research is being published in such journals than in well‐established ones (Nejadghanbar et al, 2023).…”

“…This allure of quick publications is a cycle that becomes self‐perpetuating inasmuch as the need for publications provides the fuel for such fraudulent practices to flourish. In addition, as Nejadghanbar et al (2023) found, most researchers they contacted—many of them young scholars—were completely oblivious to the lower quality of the journal to which they had submitted their work. Of course, their research magnifies the need for wider discussions on predatory practices in general.…”