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)

Rahul M.

March 19, 2025 08:17 AM

My experience with MDPI was disappointing from start to finish. While I appreciated the open-access model, I found the submission platform to be cumbersome and less intuitive than I had hoped. I faced numerous issues while uploading my manuscript and figures, which resulted in wasted time and additional stress. The peer review experience was equally frustrating. I felt that the feedback was not only delayed but also lacked depth. It seemed as though the reviewers did not fully engage with my research, as their comments were often generic and did not address the core issues of my work. This lack of constructive criticism made the revision process unnecessarily difficult.

Ling W.

March 19, 2025 08:17 AM

My journey with MDPI as an author was riddled with challenges. Although the initial submission process seemed promising, I soon encountered significant delays in peer review. The reviewers took an unusually long time to provide feedback, and when I finally received their comments, they were vague and unconstructive, leaving me unsure of how to improve my manuscript. Additionally, the publication fees were a major concern for me. While I understood the need for open access, I felt that the costs were disproportionate to the quality of service I received. The financial burden, combined with the lack of support during the review process, made me question whether publishing with MDPI was worth it.

Anil R.

March 19, 2025 08:16 AM

I had high hopes when I submitted my paper to MDPI, but my experience was quite disheartening. The communication from the editorial team was often slow and unhelpful. I found myself waiting weeks for responses to simple inquiries about the status of my manuscript, which added considerable stress to the process. Furthermore, I was frustrated by the lengthy review times. What I initially expected to be a quick publication process turned into a year-long wait. By the time my paper was finally published, I felt that the relevance of my research had diminished, and it was no longer timely in the academic community.

Sofia K.

March 19, 2025 08:16 AM

My experience with MDPI was far from satisfactory. The submission process, while initially straightforward, turned into a frustrating ordeal when I encountered multiple technical issues with their online portal. It often felt like the system was not user-friendly, and I spent a considerable amount of time trying to navigate through glitches that delayed my submission. The peer review process was another source of disappointment. I received feedback that seemed superficial and not well thought out, indicating a lack of thoroughness from the reviewers. It felt as if my work was not given the attention it deserved, leading to unnecessary revisions that ultimately detracted from the quality of my research.

Lina T.

March 19, 2025 08:14 AM

I found the experience of publishing with MDPI to be quite positive. The journal's open access policy allowed my work to gain visibility, though I did think the review process could have been a bit quicker.

Min J.

March 19, 2025 08:13 AM

Overall, I had a satisfactory experience with MDPI. My paper went through a thorough review process, but I did experience some delays in the final publication stages, which was a bit frustrating.

Arjun P.

March 19, 2025 08:13 AM

MDPI provided a good platform for my research to reach a wider audience. The editorial team was helpful, yet I encountered some inconsistencies in feedback that made the revision process challenging.

Sofia L.

March 19, 2025 08:13 AM

I appreciated the professional support from the MDPI team during my publication journey. The process was relatively quick, but I found the publication fees a bit steep for my budget.

Yuki N.

March 19, 2025 08:12 AM

My experience with MDPI was positive. The quality of peer review was commendable, and my concerns were addressed promptly. However, I felt that the promotion of my article could have been more robust.

Tao W.

March 19, 2025 08:12 AM

I found MDPI's platform quite accessible, making the submission process smooth. The review process was fairly efficient, although I did wish for more transparency regarding the timelines.

Hina R.

March 19, 2025 08:11 AM

Publishing with MDPI was a rewarding experience overall. The editorial team was responsive, and my article was published in a timely manner. Nevertheless, I did face some formatting issues that took extra time to resolve.

Hina R.

March 19, 2025 08:11 AM

Publishing with MDPI was a rewarding experience overall. The editorial team was responsive, and my article was published in a timely manner. Nevertheless, I did face some formatting issues that took extra time to resolve.

Ravi S.

March 19, 2025 08:10 AM

I was pleased with the visibility my article received after publication in MDPI. The open access model truly allows for a broader audience. However, I felt the publication fees were on the higher side.

Chen L.

March 19, 2025 08:10 AM

My experience with MDPI was mostly good. The peer review was thorough, and I liked the constructive comments. Still, I encountered some delays in communication that could have been improved.

Aisha K.

March 19, 2025 08:10 AM

I had a generally positive experience with MDPI. The submission process was user-friendly, and my paper was published relatively quickly. However, I felt that the revision feedback could have been more detailed.