The open-access publishing model has transformed scientific communication but has also revealed vulnerabilities in editorial practices and peer review processes. MDPI, one of the largest open-access publishers, has become a focal point of criticism for its reliance on special issues, a model many argue prioritizes profit over rigor. These practices raise serious ethical and quality concerns that undermine trust in academic publishing and place undue pressure on researchers and editors alike. For medical editors and authors, addressing these challenges is critical to safeguarding the integrity of scholarly communication.
MDPI’s solicitation practices have been widely criticized for their aggressiveness. The publisher routinely sends unsolicited emails to recruit guest editors and solicit submissions, often inundating researchers’ personal and institutional accounts. Guest editors are encouraged to use their own networks and email accounts to recruit authors, bypassing institutional safeguards against spam. Such practices erode trust in the editorial process and raise significant ethical concerns about MDPI’s professional standards. While solicitation is a common strategy in academic publishing, MDPI’s approach exemplifies the exploitation of researchers’ networks for commercial gain.
Guest editors, central to the success of special issues, typically face immense pressure to meet submission quotas. Rather than serving as impartial curators of scientific knowledge, they are tasked with recruiting large numbers of submissions to fulfill the publisher’s commercial objectives. This dynamic shifts the focus from academic oversight to revenue generation. Early-career researchers are particularly vulnerable, as they are often misled into believing guest editorships will enhance their careers, only to find their reputations tarnished by association with journals perceived as lacking rigor. The 2018 resignation of ten senior editors from MDPI’s Nutrients journal, citing interference with editorial standards, highlights the systemic nature of these issues and their impact on academic credibility.
MDPI’s financial model further exacerbates these concerns. Article processing charges (APCs), while a standard feature of open-access publishing, impose significant economic burdens on authors, particularly those from underfunded institutions and developing countries. Combined with aggressive solicitation practices, these charges create a system where quality is often secondary to quantity. Guest editors have felt compelled to accept substandard articles to meet special issue targets. This practice undermines the credibility of the research and diminishes the journals’ value.
The rapid publication timelines characteristic of MDPI journals, often 30 days, pose additional challenges. While speed can be advantageous in certain disciplines, these compressed timelines leave little room for rigorous peer review and meaningful revisions. Critics argue that MDPI’s emphasis on accelerated publication reflects a prioritization of profit over the integrity of the peer review process. The delisting of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) by Clarivate’s Web of Science in 2023 illustrates the consequences of these practices. Due to concerns over content relevance and scope, the delisting led to a dramatic decline in publication rates and highlighted systemic flaws in MDPI’s approach to quality control.
Institutions and indexing services have responded by taking action to mitigate the risks associated with MDPI’s practices. The Chinese Academy of Sciences placed several MDPI journals on its “Early Warning Journal List,” signaling serious doubts about their academic integrity. Scopus has reviewed numerous MDPI journals for citation manipulation and inadequate peer review processes. Universities such as the University of Queensland and the University of South Africa have issued internal warnings to their researchers, advising caution when considering publishing in MDPI journals. These measures reflect a growing consensus within the academic community about addressing the publisher’s practices and upholding rigorous standards in scholarly communication.
For medical editors, the challenges posed by MDPI’s practices underscore the importance of editorial independence and a commitment to academic rigor. Editors must advocate for greater transparency in publisher practices and demand robust peer review processes to protect the credibility of their journals. Institutions must also establish clear guidelines for evaluating guest editorships and discourage participation in special issues prioritizing financial objectives over scholarly contributions. Collaborative efforts among editors, researchers, and publishers are essential to restore trust in open-access publishing and ensure that it serves the interests of the academic community rather than commercial imperatives.
MDPI’s practices present significant challenges for authors that require careful navigation. The financial strain of APCs and the pressure to publish frequently for career advancement often lead authors to prioritize expedience over credibility. However, publishing in journals associated with poor peer review standards or predatory practices can severely damage an author’s professional reputation. Such publications are frequently devalued in hiring, tenure, and funding decisions, further complicating career trajectories.
Authors must critically evaluate the credibility of journals before submitting their work. Essential steps include ensuring that a journal is indexed in reputable databases such as Scopus or Web of Science, reviewing its editorial board, and scrutinizing its peer review policies. Authors should also be cautious of unsolicited invitations to submit to special issues, particularly those with aggressive timelines and unclear processes. Consulting institutional resources, such as library services, or seeking advice from mentors can help authors make informed decisions about where to publish their research.
Read More
MDPI. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI. Accessed January 3, 2025.
Retraction Watch (2024). Exclusive: MDPI journal undergoing reevaluation at Scopus, indexing on hold. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/01/02/exclusive-mdpi-journal-undergoing-reevaluation-at-scopus-indexing-on-hold. Accessed January 3, 2025.
CONEM (2024). Ethical dilemmas in publishing: Why CONEM opposes MDPI and similar journals. https://www.conem.org/2024/09/ethical-dilemmas-in-publishing-why-conem-opposes-mdpi-and-similar-journals. Accessed January 3, 2025.
Crosetto P (2021). Is MDPI a predatory publisher? Paolo Crosetto WordPress. https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher. Accessed January 3, 2025.
Petrou C (2020). Guest post — MDPI’s remarkable growth. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth. Accessed January 3, 2025.