Quality vs. Quantity: The MDPI Debate on Academic Publishing Standards

By Dr Kelvin Smith

If you’ve spent any time in academia or even skimmed or browsed through scholarly articles out of curiosity, chances are you’ve encountered MDPI—the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. Founded in Switzerland, MDPI has made significant strides as an open-access publisher, offering an expansive collection of journals that cater to fields as varied as environmental science, engineering, nanotechnology and public health. This breadth of accessibility is, without a doubt, one of its most compelling features. It’s a platform that democratizes knowledge, allowing research to move beyond paywalls and into the hands of anyone with an internet connection.

But with this accessibility comes a complex set of challenges that we, as scholars, cannot ignore. The open-access model—particularly one as prolific as MDPI’s—often draws questions about quality control. The rapid turnaround time for submissions, though appealing to authors who need to publish quickly, has led to widespread concerns about the depth of peer review. Critics argue that this speed may dilute the rigor traditionally associated with academic publishing, raising doubts about the reliability of some published studies.

These concerns are not baseless. There has been a growing number of retractions in open-access journals, including those from publishers like MDPI, due to lapses in editorial oversight and peer-review mechanisms. Similarly, there are numerous concerns about the operational models of open-access publishers, particularly regarding the tension between profitability, rapid publication, and maintaining academic integrity.

In my own field of environmental science, MDPI journals like Sustainability and Water are widely cited and respected. Yet, I’ve had colleagues express hesitation about submitting their work to these journals, fearing that the perceived leniency in peer review could impact how their research is received. This dichotomy—between valuing accessibility and questioning credibility—seems to be at the heart of the MDPI debate.

What strikes me most, though, is how this conversation underscores a broader issue in academic publishing: the balancing act between inclusivity and rigor. MDPI is not alone in navigating these waters, but its rapid growth has made it a focal point. Perhaps the real challenge lies in how we, as an academic community, approach this tension. Do we push for stricter editorial policies at the risk of curbing accessibility? Or do we embrace the imperfections of open-access models, recognizing that no system is without flaws?

Either way, MDPI’s trajectory offers valuable lessons about the evolving nature of scholarly communication. Whether you see it as a disruptor or a publisher facing challenges, it has undeniably sparked critical conversations about who gets to access knowledge and at what cost.

MDPI: Open Access for the Masses or a Peer-Review Circus?

At this point, let me reiterate the obvious: MDPI is massive. We’re talking over 430 journals and more than 285, 000 papers published in 2023 alone. That’s wild. The idea of open access—making research free for anyone to read—is fantastic in theory. It democratizes knowledge, which is something we can all get behind, right? But here’s where MDPI gets a little sticky. Critics often accuse them of being a "pay-to-publish" operation, prioritizing quantity over quality. Authors pay a hefty article processing charge (APC) to get their work published, which can run into thousands of dollars. And sure, someone has to fund free access, but the speed at which MDPI processes papers? It raises eyebrows.

Seriously, MDPI boasts turnaround times that would make other publishers weep. Some journals claim to review and accept papers in as little as two weeks. Two weeks! That’s faster than Amazon Prime delivers in some rural areas. But here’s the thing: peer review is supposed to be rigorous. It’s supposed to take time. When you’re publishing in the blink of an eye, people start asking, “How thorough could this review process really be?”.

I’ve had colleagues joke that MDPI is like the fast-food chain of academic publishing. Sure, you get your burger (or your article) quickly, but you’re not exactly expecting Michelin-star quality, are you? And that’s the crux of the issue. While MDPI journals have flashy impact factors and claim to be credible, many researchers are skeptical about the actual depth of their peer-review process. It’s like the difference between homemade pasta and pre-packaged ramen. Both fill your stomach, but you know which one took more care to prepare.

Why Some Researchers Love MDPI

Okay, I’ll admit it. MDPI isn’t all bad. Let’s give credit where it’s due. For one, they’ve made publishing way more accessible for researchers from developing countries or institutions without the resources to pay for traditional journal subscriptions. Open access is a paradigm shift, and MDPI has undoubtedly contributed to that shift. Plus, they’re not shy about covering niche topics. Have a hyper-specific research idea that doesn’t fit neatly into the big-name journals? MDPI probably has a journal for it.

And let’s not ignore the fact that not all MDPI publications are sketchy. Some of their journals, like Sensors or Sustainability, are amazingly well-regarded within their fields. I’ve even read a few solid papers from MDPI that genuinely contributed to my own work. But here’s the kicker: you have to sift through a lot of noise to find the gems. It’s like scrolling through Netflix when you’re bored. Sure, there’s some Oscar-worthy stuff in there, but you have to wade through a sea of mediocre B-movies to find it.

The Dark Side: Predatory, or Just Misunderstood?

Let’s talk about the label MDPI can’t seem to shake off: “predatory.” If you’re not familiar, predatory publishers are those shady operations that charge authors to publish but skip the whole “rigorous peer review” part. They’re basically the academic equivalent of a diploma mill. MDPI has been accused of this, though they’ve fought hard to distance themselves from the term. In 2014, MDPI was briefly on Jeffrey Beall’s infamous list of potential predatory publishers, which sent shockwaves through the academic community. They were later removed, but the stigma? That stuck around like gum on a shoe.

To be fair, calling MDPI outright predatory feels like an oversimplification. They’re not some fly-by-night operation. They’ve got a legit publishing infrastructure, and their journals are indexed in databases like Scopus and Web of Science, which is no small feat. But critics argue that their aggressive expansion and profit-driven model blur the line between legitimate open-access publishing and, well, something fishier.

One big red flag? MDPI’s relentless email campaigns. If you’ve ever published a paper or even attended a conference, chances are you’ve received one of their “cordial invitations” to submit to a journal or join an editorial board. It’s flattering at first, but after the 50th email, it starts to feel, well, desperate. I’ve even heard stories of researchers being invited to guest-edit special issues on topics way outside their expertise. Imagine being a marine biologist and getting an invitation to edit a special issue on blockchain technology. Yeah, it’s that random.

The Problem with Oversaturation

Here’s another thing to chew on: MDPI’s sheer volume of publications might actually hurt the fields they’re trying to serve. When you’re flooding the market with tens of thousands of articles a year, it becomes harder for researchers to separate the wheat from the chaff. And let’s be real, nobody has time to read through a mountain of mediocre papers to find the good ones. This oversaturation dilutes the impact of truly groundbreaking work and adds to the already overwhelming noise in academia. It’s like trying to have a meaningful conversation at a crowded party. Good luck being heard.

So, What’s the Verdict?

Look, MDPI is complicated. On one hand, they’ve done a lot to push open access forward and offer a platform for underrepresented voices in academia. On the other hand, their business model and publishing practices raise serious questions about quality control and academic integrity. Are they the villains some make them out to be? Probably not. But are they saints? Definitely not.

If you’re a researcher, my advice is to approach MDPI with caution. Do your homework. Check the reputation of the specific journal you’re considering and weigh the pros and cons. And if you’re just a curious reader stumbling across an MDPI article, take it with a grain of salt. Not everything published under their umbrella is gold, but hey, you might find something worthwhile if you dig deep enough.

What Do You Think?

At the end of the day, MDPI is a reflection of the larger challenges facing academic publishing—challenges like accessibility, sustainability, and the ever-present pressure to “publish or perish”. It’s not perfect, but then again, what is? I’m curious to hear your perspective. Have you had any experience with MDPI? Love it, hate it, or somewhere in between? I would like to hear your view.

NOTE: If you believe that this article, or any comments made under it, are unfairly critical of your organization, we encourage you to reach out to us directly through this email: [email protected]. Your perspective is important, and we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss your concerns and work towards a more balanced representation. 

Comments(126)

María G

March 20, 2025 12:15 PM

My experience with MDPI has been a bit of a rollercoaster. On one hand, I appreciated the quick turnaround time for publication and the open-access model, which allowed my research to reach a wider audience. The editorial team was generally responsive, and I received helpful feedback during the review process. However, I did encounter some inconsistencies in the quality of the reviews. While some were thorough and constructive, others felt rushed and lacked depth. This mixed experience makes me hesitant to fully endorse MDPI, but I do see potential for improvement.

Mohsin T

March 20, 2025 12:13 PM

I had a wonderful experience with MDPI. The editorial team was attentive and provided valuable feedback during the review process. I was particularly impressed by their commitment to ethical publishing practices, which reassured me that my work would be handled with care. The open access model allowed my research to reach a broader audience, and I've already received positive feedback from colleagues around the world. I would definitely consider MDPI for future publications!

Patricia C

March 20, 2025 12:11 PM

Publishing with MDPI was a positive experience from start to finish. The submission platform was user-friendly, and I appreciate the transparency in the review process. I received timely updates on the status of my manuscript, which kept me informed and engaged. The quality of the published articles in my field is impressive, and I feel proud to be part of such a reputable journal.

Femi O

March 20, 2025 12:07 PM

I recently published my article in one of MDPI's journals, and I couldn't be happier with the experience. The editorial team was incredibly helpful throughout the process, guiding me through each step. The open-access format ensured that my research was accessible to a global audience, which is crucial for fostering collaboration and discussion in my field. I highly recommend MDPI to fellow researchers!

Rajiv K

March 20, 2025 12:07 PM

MDPI has been a great platform for my academic work. The peer review process was efficient, and I received constructive feedback that helped improve my manuscript significantly. I was impressed by the professionalism of the reviewers and the editorial staff. The quick turnaround time for publication was also a major plus, allowing me to share my findings with the academic community sooner than I expected.

Yara A

March 20, 2025 12:05 PM

I was disappointed by the lack of engagement from the editorial team. After submitting my manuscript, I felt like I was left in the dark with no updates or communication. This lack of transparency made the entire process feel unprofessional. I would suggest that MDPI improve their website usability and enhance communication with authors to create a better experience.

Tomasz N

March 20, 2025 12:04 PM

While I appreciate the variety of journals MDPI offers, I found the quality of the editorial process to be lacking. Many articles seemed to have been published without thorough vetting, leading to the dissemination of questionable research. As a researcher, I rely on credible sources, and it was disheartening to see so many articles that did not meet academic standards. Additionally, the publication fees were quite high, especially considering the inconsistent quality of the content. I expected a more rigorous review process for the price I paid. I would recommend that MDPI invest in improving their editorial standards to enhance their reputation in the academic community.

Mei L

March 20, 2025 12:01 PM

I was drawn to MDPI because of its open-access model, but I quickly became frustrated with the experience. The platform often had technical issues, making it difficult to access articles or download PDFs. I encountered several error messages that disrupted my research process, which was incredibly inconvenient. Furthermore, the customer support was lacking. When I reached out for assistance regarding the technical issues, I received slow responses that did not resolve my problems. A more reliable platform and better customer service would significantly improve the overall experience for users.

Dmitri V

March 20, 2025 12:00 PM

I was disappointed by the overall quality of the articles published in MDPI. Many of the papers seemed to lack depth and rigor, which made me question the journal's standards. As a researcher, I expect to find high-quality, well-researched articles, but I often found myself sifting through content that felt rushed and poorly executed. Additionally, the editorial policies seemed inconsistent. I noticed that some articles were published with minimal scrutiny, while others faced extensive delays. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the journal and makes it difficult for researchers to trust the quality of the published work.

Sofia R

March 20, 2025 11:53 AM

I was disappointed with my experience at MDPI. The peer review process was not only slow but also seemed to lack the necessary rigor. I received feedback that was vague and unhelpful, which made revising my manuscript a challenge. It felt like my work was not taken seriously, and I was left feeling undervalued as an author. Moreover, the customer service was lacking. I reached out multiple times for updates and received little to no response. This lack of communication made the entire process frustrating and disheartening. I would recommend seeking out more reputable journals that prioritize thorough peer review and author engagement.

Rajesh P

March 20, 2025 11:52 AM

My experience with MDPI was far from ideal. After submitting my paper, I encountered significant delays in the review process, which was frustrating. When I finally received feedback, it was clear that the reviewers had not engaged deeply with my work. Their comments were generic and did not reflect a thorough understanding of my research. Additionally, I was shocked by the high publication fees, especially considering the lack of quality in the review process. I felt that my investment did not yield the professional support I expected. I would caution other researchers to think twice before submitting their work to MDPI.

Elena I

March 20, 2025 11:51 AM

Submitting my research to MDPI was a regrettable decision. The review process was not only lengthy but also lacked the rigor I anticipated. I received feedback that was often contradictory and poorly articulated, which made it difficult to revise my manuscript as I should. It felt like my work was being treated as just another number in their publication queue. On top of that, the communication from the editorial team was lacking. I often found myself waiting weeks for responses to my inquiries, which added to my frustration. I would recommend looking elsewhere for publication, as MDPI did not meet my expectations for a reputable academic journal.

Li Wei

March 20, 2025 11:48 AM

I had high hopes for publishing with MDPI, but the reality was quite different. The peer review process felt rushed, and the comments I received were superficial at best. It seemed like the reviewers were more interested in meeting deadlines than providing constructive feedback. This left me feeling undervalued as an author and questioning the journal's standards. Furthermore, the publication fees were not justified by the quality of service. I expected a more professional approach, but instead, I encountered a lack of transparency and support. I would advise my colleagues to seek out journals that prioritize thorough peer review and author engagement.

John M

March 20, 2025 11:46 AM

My experience with MDPI was disappointing. I submitted a manuscript that I believed was of high quality, but the review process was riddled with delays and miscommunication. It took over six months to receive feedback, and when it finally came, it was clear that the reviewers had not thoroughly read my paper. This lack of diligence made me question the journal's commitment to academic integrity. Additionally, I found the editorial staff to be unresponsive and dismissive of my concerns. When I raised issues about the review process, I received generic replies that did not address my specific questions. I would not recommend MDPI to anyone looking for a reliable publishing experience.

Sarah T

March 20, 2025 11:45 AM

I submitted my research to MDPI, hoping for a quick turnaround, but the experience was far from satisfactory. The peer review process took much longer than advertised, and I felt like my work was not given the attention it deserved. The feedback I received was vague and unhelpful, leaving me frustrated and questioning the journal's credibility. I expected a rigorous review, but it seemed more like a rubber stamp operation. Moreover, the publication fees were exorbitant for the quality of service provided. I had to chase down the editorial team multiple times for updates, which added to my stress. In the end, I regretted choosing MDPI and would advise fellow researchers to consider more reputable journals for their important work.