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)

John R.

March 19, 2025 08:48 AM

As for me, while I can say that I found the submission platform user-friendly and received prompt acknowledgment of my manuscript, I did experience some delays during the peer review process that caused anxiety. The feedback I received was helpful overall, but the inconsistency in the quality of reviews made it difficult to implement all the suggested changes effectively.

Maria T.

March 19, 2025 08:47 AM

I had a wonderful experience with MDPI, as the submission process was smooth and efficient. The editorial team was responsive to my inquiries, and I appreciated the quick turnaround time for both the review and publication stages. The constructive feedback I received from the reviewers greatly improved my manuscript, and I was thrilled with the visibility my published paper gained through their open-access model.

Alex J.

March 19, 2025 08:46 AM

My experience with MDPI was quite frustrating due to the lengthy peer review process. I submitted my manuscript and faced serious delays in receiving feedback, which left me feeling anxious about the status of my work. When I finally received the reviews, they were inconsistent and lacked depth, making it difficult to address the reviewers' concerns as I should.

Jude A

March 19, 2025 08:45 AM

I had a fantastic experience with MDPI from start to finish. The submission process was seamless and user-friendly, allowing me to easily upload my manuscript and receive prompt acknowledgment. I was particularly impressed with the speed of the peer review process; I received constructive feedback in a timely manner that significantly enhanced the quality of my work. The reviewers were thorough and provided valuable insights that helped clarify my arguments. Ultimately, my paper was published quickly, and the visibility it gained through MDPI's open-access model has positively impacted my academic presence.

Elena T.

March 19, 2025 08:43 AM

My experience with MDPI was a mix of positives and negatives. The submission platform was easy to navigate, and I liked the clear instructions provided throughout the process. I received quick acknowledgment of my submission, which was reassuring. However, I did encounter some technical issues while uploading my manuscript, which caused minor delays and added to my worry. The peer review process was another area of mixed results. While I received some insightful feedback that helped improve my manuscript, there were also comments that felt vague and unhelpful. This inconsistency made it difficult for me to address all the reviewers' concerns effectively. Nevertheless, my paper was ultimately accepted and published, and I valued the open-access model that MDPI offers, as it has increased the visibility of my research within the academic community.

Elena T.

March 19, 2025 08:43 AM

My experience with MDPI was a mix of positives and negatives. The submission platform was easy to navigate, and I liked the clear instructions provided throughout the process. I received quick acknowledgment of my submission, which was reassuring. However, I did encounter some technical issues while uploading my manuscript, which caused minor delays and added to my worry. The peer review process was another area of mixed results. While I received some insightful feedback that helped improve my manuscript, there were also comments that felt vague and unhelpful. This inconsistency made it difficult for me to address all the reviewers' concerns effectively. Nevertheless, my paper was ultimately accepted and published, and I valued the open-access model that MDPI offers, as it has increased the visibility of my research within the academic community.

Daniel R.

March 19, 2025 08:42 AM

My time with MDPI had both positive and frustrating elements. I was impressed by the initial submission process, which was user-friendly and efficient. The editorial team was responsive to my inquiries, providing timely updates that kept me informed about my manuscript's progress. However, I faced some challenges with the peer review process, as I experienced delays in receiving feedback. This uncertainty made the waiting period feel longer than necessary. Despite the delays, the feedback I received was valuable overall. Some reviewers provided constructive criticism that helped me refine my arguments, while others seemed to overlook key aspects of my research. This inconsistency made it challenging to implement all the necessary changes effectively. Ultimately, while my article was published and I appreciated the exposure it received, I believe that improvements in the review process could enhance the overall author experience.

Patel L

March 19, 2025 08:41 AM

My experience with MDPI was a blend of positives and challenges. The submission process was relatively straightforward, and I think I like the clear guidelines provided for formatting my manuscript. I received prompt acknowledgment of my submission, which made me feel valued as an author. However, I did encounter some delays during the peer review process that left me feeling anxious about the status of my paper. While I understand that thorough reviews take time, the waiting period was longer than I had anticipated. On the positive side, the feedback I received from the reviewers was quite helpful. Some provided insightful comments that significantly improved the quality of my manuscript, while others offered suggestions that were less clear. Despite the mixed quality of the reviews, I ultimately felt that my work was enhanced through the process. In the end, my paper was published, and I appreciated the visibility it gained through MDPI's open-access model, which has positively impacted my academic profile.

Okoro K.

March 19, 2025 08:40 AM

My experience with MDPI was overshadowed by the overwhelming number of journals they offer. While I appreciate the variety, it made it incredibly difficult to identify the most suitable journal for my research. The sheer volume of options led to confusion, and I found myself second-guessing my choice, wondering if I had selected a journal that would adequately represent the quality of my work. This situation was compounded by the fact that many of their journals seemed to have overlapping scopes, which only added to my uncertainty. Moreover, the proliferation of journals has raised concerns about the quality of the peer review process. With so many journals to manage, it felt like some were struggling to maintain rigorous standards. I experienced significant delays in receiving feedback, and when I did, the quality of the reviews varied widely. This inconsistency made me question whether my manuscript was being evaluated fairly. Overall, while MDPI offers a broad platform for publication, the large number of journals can lead to confusion and concerns about quality, detracting from the overall publishing experience.

Tomoko N.

March 19, 2025 08:39 AM

My experience with MDPI was disappointing from the start. The submission platform was cumbersome, and I faced numerous technical glitches that delayed my manuscript submission. I had to contact customer support multiple times, which was frustrating and time-consuming. I expected a smoother process, especially given the competitive nature of academic publishing. Additionally, the peer review process was not up to par. While I did receive feedback, it was often superficial and did not provide the guidance I needed to improve my manuscript effectively. Some reviewers seemed to overlook critical aspects of my research, which left me feeling undervalued as an author. Overall, the combination of technical issues and inconsistent feedback made my experience with MDPI less than satisfactory.

Maya S.

March 19, 2025 08:38 AM

My journey with MDPI was largely negative. While I appreciated the concept of open access, the actual submission process was riddled with issues. I found the formatting requirements to be overly complicated, which led to multiple rounds of revisions that felt unnecessary. Additionally, the communication from the editorial team was often slow, leaving me in the dark about the status of my manuscript for extended periods. The peer review experience was equally frustrating. Although I received some constructive feedback, much of it was inconsistent and lacked depth. This inconsistency made it challenging to implement the necessary changes to my manuscript. Ultimately, while my paper was published, the overall experience was marred by delays and a lack of clear communication, leading me to question whether I would choose MDPI for future submissions.

Rajesh P.

March 19, 2025 08:37 AM

My experience with MDPI was quite disappointing. Although I was initially attracted to their open-access model, the submission process turned out to be frustrating. The online platform was not very intuitive, and I encountered several technical issues while trying to upload my manuscript. This led to delays and added stress, making the entire experience feel unprofessional. Furthermore, the peer review process left much to be desired. I faced significant delays in receiving feedback, and when it finally arrived, it was often vague and unhelpful. Some reviewers seemed to have rushed through their evaluations, which made it difficult for me to address their concerns effectively. Overall, I felt that my work was not given the thorough consideration it deserved, and I would hesitate to submit to MDPI again.

Nina L.

March 19, 2025 08:36 AM

My journey with MDPI had both positive and frustrating parts. I was impressed by the initial submission process, which was straightforward and user-friendly. The editorial team was responsive to my inquiries, providing timely updates that kept me informed about my manuscript's progress. However, I faced some challenges with the formatting requirements, which were more complex than I anticipated, leading to additional revisions that could have been avoided. The peer review process was another area of mixed results. While I received valuable feedback from some reviewers, others seemed to overlook key aspects of my research, which made the revision process somewhat frustrating. In the end, my article was published, and I appreciated the visibility it received through MDPI's open-access model, but I believe that improvements in the review process could enhance the overall author experience.

Carlos T.

March 19, 2025 08:36 AM

My experience with MDPI was a mix of positive and negative aspects. Firstly, I found the submission process to be quite efficient. The online platform was easy to navigate, and I admired the clear guidelines provided for formatting my manuscript. I received prompt acknowledgment of my submission, which made me feel valued as an author. However, I did encounter some delays during the peer review process that left me feeling anxious about the status of my paper. The feedback I received from the reviewers was also a mixed bag. While some reviewers offered insightful and constructive comments that helped improve my work, others provided vague suggestions that were difficult to interpret. This inconsistency made it challenging to address their concerns effectively. Ultimately, my paper was published, and I was pleased with the exposure it gained, but the uneven quality of the review process left me wanting a more cohesive experience.

Emma J.

March 19, 2025 08:34 AM

I had a remarkably positive experience publishing my research with MDPI. The submission process was incredibly smooth, thanks to their user-friendly online platform that guided me through each step with clear instructions. I was impressed by how quickly I received acknowledgment of my submission, as well as timely updates throughout the review process, which made me feel informed and supported. The peer review itself was another highlight of my experience. The reviewers provided detailed and constructive feedback that truly enhanced the quality of my manuscript. Their thoughtful critiques helped me refine my arguments and clarify my findings, ultimately leading to a stronger final paper. I was thrilled when my paper was accepted and published without unnecessary delays, and I appreciate the exposure it has received through MDPI's open-access model, which has positively impacted my academic visibility.