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)

Sunita P.

March 19, 2025 08:27 AM

My experience with MDPI was not what I had hoped for. While I appreciated the concept of open access, I found the submission platform to be challenging to navigate. I encountered several issues when trying to upload my manuscript and figures, which required multiple attempts and added to my frustration. It felt as though the system was not designed with user-friendliness in mind. Additionally, the peer review process left much to be desired. I experienced significant delays in receiving feedback, and when it finally arrived, it was often vague and unhelpful. This lack of constructive criticism made it difficult for me to address the reviewers’ concerns effectively, leading to a tedious revision process. Overall, I was left feeling that my work was not valued as it should have been, and I would think twice before submitting again.

Taro M.

March 19, 2025 08:26 AM

My experience with MDPI was disappointing from start to finish. Initially, I was impressed with the open-access model, but the reality of the submission process quickly changed my view. I faced numerous delays in the peer review stage, with my manuscript lingering in review for months without any updates. This lack of communication left me feeling anxious and uncertain about the status of my work. When I did receive feedback, it was a mixed bag. Some reviewers provided useful comments, but others seemed to rush through their evaluations. The inconsistency in feedback quality made it difficult for me to implement necessary revisions effectively. Ultimately, the long wait times and lack of clear communication overshadowed the positives of the publication process, leaving me feeling dissatisfied with my experience.

Hina R.

March 19, 2025 08:25 AM

My journey with MDPI was largely negative, starting with the submission phase. While I appreciated the open-access model, the online submission system was cumbersome and not very intuitive. I encountered several technical glitches that caused delays in my submission, which added unnecessary stress to the already demanding process of preparing my manuscript. The peer review experience compounded my frustrations. Although I received feedback, it often felt superficial and lacking in detail. Some comments were vague and did not provide the guidance I needed to improve my manuscript effectively. This left me feeling that my research was not given the thorough evaluation it deserved, and I questioned whether my work was valued in the MDPI publication process.

Arjun K.

March 19, 2025 08:24 AM

I had high expectations for my publication with MDPI, but my experience was marred by significant issues. The communication from the editorial team was often slow, leaving me uncertain about the status of my manuscript. On several occasions, I had to follow up for updates, which made the process feel unprofessional. I expected timely responses, especially considering the competitive nature of academic publishing. Additionally, the peer review process was less than ideal. While I did receive feedback, it was inconsistent and, at times, confusing. Some reviewers provided valuable insights, but others seemed to overlook critical aspects of my research. This inconsistency made it challenging for me to make meaningful revisions, ultimately leading to frustration and disappointment with the publication process.

Liang Z.

March 19, 2025 08:24 AM

My experience with MDPI was quite frustrating. Although the initial submission process seemed straightforward, I encountered several technical issues with their online system that delayed my manuscript submission. I had to reach out to customer support multiple times, which was time-consuming and stressful. Waiting for a resolution added unnecessary pressure to an already challenging process. The peer review process was another disappointment. While I eventually received feedback, it was delayed and felt rushed. The reviewers' comments were vague and did not provide the constructive criticism I was hoping for. As a result, I struggled to address their concerns adequately during the revision process, leading to a sense of dissatisfaction with the overall experience.

Sofia T.

March 19, 2025 08:22 AM

My experience with MDPI has been very positive overall. From the moment I submitted my manuscript, I found the process to be efficient and well-organized. The editorial team was highly responsive to my queries, providing timely answers that eased my concerns about the publication process. I appreciated the clear instructions on formatting and submission, which helped me prepare my work effectively. Additionally, the peer review process exceeded my expectations. The feedback I received was insightful and constructive, allowing me to make meaningful improvements to my manuscript. I was impressed by the professionalism of the reviewers and their engagement with my research. Once published, my article gained significant visibility, and I am grateful for the exposure MDPI provides through its open-access platform, which has positively contributed to my academic profile.

Kiran M.

March 19, 2025 08:22 AM

I had an excellent experience publishing with MDPI. The submission process was seamless, and I appreciated the user-friendly online platform that guided me through each step. The editorial team was prompt in acknowledging my submission, and I received regular updates on the progress of my manuscript, which made me feel involved and informed throughout the process. The peer review experience was equally impressive. The reviewers provided thorough and constructive feedback that significantly enhanced the quality of my research. Their insights helped me refine my arguments and strengthen my conclusions. I was thrilled when my paper was accepted and published in a timely manner, and I've already noticed a positive impact on my academic visibility thanks to the open-access model that MDPI offers.

Suki L.

March 19, 2025 08:21 AM

My experience with MDPI was a combination of positive and frustrating elements. The submission process was straightforward, and I appreciated the prompt acknowledgment of my manuscript. The editorial team was generally helpful, but I did experience some delays in communication that made me feel uncertain about the progress of my paper. The peer review feedback was also a mixed experience. Some reviewers provided insightful comments that significantly improved my work, while others offered suggestions that felt superficial and unhelpful. Despite these challenges, my paper was ultimately published, and I was pleased with the exposure it received. However, I believe that MDPI could benefit from a more consistent approach to reviewer engagement to enhance the quality of the publication process.

Priya S.

March 19, 2025 08:21 AM

My journey with MDPI had its ups and downs. I was impressed by the professionalism of the editorial team and their responsiveness to my inquiries. They provided clear guidelines that helped me prepare my manuscript effectively. 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 a mixed bag as well. While I received valuable insights from some reviewers, others seemed to overlook key aspects of my research. This inconsistency made the revision process somewhat frustrating. In the end, I was satisfied with the publication of my article, but I believe that improvements in the review process could enhance the overall author experience.

Priya S.

March 19, 2025 08:20 AM

My journey with MDPI had its ups and downs. I was impressed by the professionalism of the editorial team and their responsiveness to my inquiries. They provided clear guidelines that helped me prepare my manuscript effectively. 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 a mixed bag as well. While I received valuable insights from some reviewers, others seemed to overlook key aspects of my research. This inconsistency made the revision process somewhat frustrating. In the end, I was satisfied with the publication of my article, but I believe that improvements in the review process could enhance the overall author experience.

Jin H.

March 19, 2025 08:20 AM

My experience with MDPI was a blend of positive and negative aspects. On one hand, I appreciated the quick turnaround time for my manuscript submission and the initial acknowledgment I received. The online submission system was intuitive, making it easy to upload my work. However, I encountered some delays during the peer review process that left me feeling anxious about the status of my paper. While the feedback I received from the reviewers was generally constructive, I found some comments to be vague and lacking depth. This made it challenging to address their concerns effectively. Ultimately, my paper was published, and I was pleased with the visibility it gained through MDPI's open-access model, but the inconsistencies in communication and feedback left me wanting a more streamlined experience.

Jin H.

March 19, 2025 08:20 AM

My experience with MDPI was a blend of positive and negative aspects. On one hand, I appreciated the quick turnaround time for my manuscript submission and the initial acknowledgment I received. The online submission system was intuitive, making it easy to upload my work. However, I encountered some delays during the peer review process that left me feeling anxious about the status of my paper. While the feedback I received from the reviewers was generally constructive, I found some comments to be vague and lacking depth. This made it challenging to address their concerns effectively. Ultimately, my paper was published, and I was pleased with the visibility it gained through MDPI's open-access model, but the inconsistencies in communication and feedback left me wanting a more streamlined experience.

Aisha N.

March 19, 2025 08:19 AM

I had a fantastic experience publishing with MDPI. The editorial team was highly responsive and supportive throughout the entire process. Whenever I had questions or needed clarification, they were quick to respond, which made me feel valued as an author. The clear communication and guidance provided by the team significantly reduced the stress often associated with publishing. Furthermore, I was impressed by the thoroughness of the peer review process. The reviewers offered detailed critiques that helped refine my research, and I appreciated their professionalism and expertise. My paper was published relatively quickly, and I have since received positive feedback from colleagues who have read it. The visibility afforded by MDPI's open-access platform has been an invaluable asset for my academic career.

Ming X.

March 19, 2025 08:18 AM

My experience with MDPI was overwhelmingly positive. From the moment I submitted my manuscript, I found the online submission system to be user-friendly and efficient. The process was straightforward, and I appreciated the clear guidelines provided for authors, which made it easy to prepare my document. Upon submission, I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly I received acknowledgment and updates regarding the status of my paper. The peer review process was also commendable. The reviewers provided insightful and constructive feedback that helped enhance the quality of my work. I felt that they engaged deeply with my research, offering suggestions that genuinely improved my manuscript. Ultimately, my paper was accepted and published in a timely manner, and I was thrilled to see it reach a broad audience thanks to MDPI's open-access model.

Hiroshi T.

March 19, 2025 08:18 AM

I had a negative experience while publishing with MDPI that left me feeling dissatisfied. The editorial team seemed overwhelmed, as responses to my questions often took weeks. This lack of timely communication made it challenging to understand where my manuscript stood in the review process, leading to a sense of uncertainty. Additionally, I was disheartened by the overall quality of the peer review. The reviewers provided feedback that felt rushed and superficial, which undermined the integrity of the process. After putting in significant effort into my research, I expected a more rigorous evaluation, but instead, I felt that my work was not taken seriously.