Is Applied Sciences (MDPI) Predatory? A Practical Verdict

Applied Sciences openly publishes its indexing information, APC, editorial process, and submission instructions. It is listed in the databases authors usually care about when they are trying to separate legitimate journals from scam operations.

The journal is also structurally broad. That matters. Applied Sciences is not behaving like a tight specialty title with one sharply defined audience. It is behaving like a large section-based journal where the most important editorial question is whether your paper fits the right part of the journal and can survive a fast, high-volume workflow.

So the honest verdict is not "predatory." It is "legitimate, but strategically uneven."

The Finland downgrade is significant - it means Finnish institutions do not count Applied Sciences publications toward research evaluation. Authors at institutions that follow Nordic or EU evaluation frameworks should check whether this affects their context.

The real risk with Applied Sciences is not fake peer review. It is that authors sometimes treat a broad MDPI journal like a neutral substitute for a stronger specialist venue.

That can be a mistake for several reasons:

• section quality and fit can vary
• the MDPI brand carries different weight across fields and institutions
• a special-issue route may not send the same signal as a stronger society or specialist journal
• some committees and institutions treat broad MDPI placements more skeptically than authors expect

That is a fit and signal problem, not a predatory problem.

Applied Sciences can make sense when:

• the work is genuinely applied rather than only narrowly technical
• the manuscript fits a clear section of the journal
• the authors want a broad open-access venue and are comfortable with the MDPI model
• the paper is unlikely to benefit from waiting for a stronger, narrower journal

It is a weaker choice when:

• the paper can plausibly compete in a stronger specialist or society venue
• the authors need a cleaner prestige signal
• the institution or field is actively skeptical of MDPI placements
• the manuscript is only loosely "applied" and does not really justify such a broad journal

For most authors, the better question is:

Is this paper actually best served by a broad, section-based MDPI journal, or would a stronger specialist venue give the work a better long-term signal?

That is the decision that will actually help the author. The predatory label is usually too crude for the real tradeoff here.

If you are comparing Applied Sciences with nearby options, these pages are the better cluster:

• Applied Sciences acceptance rate
• Applied Sciences submission guide
• Is my paper ready for Applied Sciences?
• How to avoid desk rejection at Applied Sciences
• MDPI journals quality assessment

Applied Sciences is not predatory. It is a legitimate journal inside a publishing model that some authors and institutions view cautiously.

So the real decision is strategic: if you are comfortable with the MDPI model and the paper truly belongs in a broad applied venue, the journal can make sense. If what you really need is stronger field prestige or tighter specialist fit, the legitimacy question is not the main issue. The venue choice is.

If you want a more direct decision on whether this manuscript should go to Applied Sciences or somewhere stronger, manuscript readiness check is the best next step.

Journal editorial capacity fluctuates. Submissions during major conference seasons face longer reviewer turnaround. End-of-year submissions may sit longer during holiday periods. New IF announcements (June each year) can temporarily increase submissions to journals whose IF rose.

For selective journals, the practical advice is: submit when the manuscript is ready, not when the calendar seems favorable. A paper that is scientifically complete and properly targeted will succeed regardless of timing. A paper with gaps will fail regardless of when you submit.

A manuscript scope and readiness check evaluates readiness independently of timing. The manuscript readiness check catches the issues that matter more than submission date.