Is Applied Sciences (MDPI) Predatory? A Practical Verdict
Applied Sciences is a legitimate MDPI journal, not a predatory one. The real decision is whether its broad, section-driven, high-volume model is the right fit for your work.
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Quick answer: Applied Sciences is not predatory. It is a legitimate MDPI journal. The real issue is whether a broad, high-volume, section-based MDPI journal is actually the right home for your paper.
Why people ask the question
Authors usually ask this for one of three reasons:
- the journal is part of the broader MDPI reputation debate
- the journal is very broad and section-driven
- the journal feels much larger and faster than a classic specialist engineering or science title
Those concerns are understandable. They still do not make the journal predatory by default.
Predatory journals usually show fake or absent peer review, deceptive indexing claims, hidden or misleading fees, and weak or fabricated editorial infrastructure. Applied Sciences is not operating in that category.
What is actually true about Applied Sciences
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."
Where the real risk sits
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.
When Applied Sciences is a reasonable choice
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
The better question than "is Applied Sciences predatory?"
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
Practical verdict
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, Manusights pre-submission review is the best next step.
Sources
- 1. Applied Sciences journal homepage, MDPI.
- 2. Applied Sciences indexing information, MDPI.
- 3. Applied Sciences instructions for authors, MDPI.
- 4. MDPI editorial process, MDPI.
- 5. DOAJ listing for Applied Sciences, DOAJ.
- 6. Grey area journals on level 0, Publication Forum (Finland).
- 7. Some guest editors pack special issues with their own articles, Science.
Reference library
Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide
This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: how selective journals are, how long review takes, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Dataset / benchmark
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates
A field-organized acceptance-rate guide that works as a neutral benchmark when authors are deciding how selective to target.
Reference table
Journal Submission Specs
A high-utility submission table covering word limits, figure caps, reference limits, and formatting expectations.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.