Is International Journal of Molecular Sciences a Good Journal? Fit Verdict

MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) is a legitimate publisher, but its model generates controversy:

What researchers worry about:

• High acceptance rates (~50-60%) compared to traditional journals
• Aggressive editorial solicitation emails ("We invite you to submit...")
• Very fast review turnaround (sometimes 2-3 weeks), which raises quality concerns
• Guest editor model where topic collections may have lower oversight

What's actually true:

• MDPI journals are indexed in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed
• The peer review is real (not rubber-stamped)
• The APC ($2,900) is disclosed upfront
• Some MDPI journals have been removed from indices and later reinstated, which fuels suspicion

The honest assessment: IJMS is not predatory. The review is real. But the high acceptance rate and volume mean the selectivity bar is lower than traditional journals with similar IFs. A paper published in IJMS is legitimate but carries less prestige per paper than a journal with 15-20% acceptance.

Submit if:

• Your molecular science paper is technically sound and you value fast turnaround and open access over selectivity signaling
• The work has a real molecular-science contribution and complete evidence, even if the significance is not field-defining
• Speed matters for your timeline and you are comfortable with the MDPI publishing model and the $2,900 APC
• Your field and institution accept MDPI journals as legitimate venues, and the IF of 4.9 meets your career needs

Think twice if:

• Prestige, selectivity, or field-specific audience matter for your career stage, since the 50-60% acceptance rate signals low selectivity
• Your institution or hiring committee views MDPI journals negatively despite their legitimate indexing in Scopus, WoS, and PubMed
• A traditional journal with a similar IF but lower acceptance rate would carry more weight for grants or promotion
• Individual paper visibility matters to you, since 10,000+ papers per year means more competition for reader attention within the journal

The real question behind "is IJMS a good journal?" is usually "is MDPI legitimate?" Here's the honest answer:

MDPI is legitimate but controversial. The publisher is based in Basel, Switzerland, runs 400+ journals, and is indexed in all major databases. The journals are genuinely peer-reviewed. But MDPI's business model (high volume, fast review, aggressive email solicitation) creates a perception problem.

What critics say: 50-60% acceptance rates, 2-3 week review turnarounds, and frequent editorial solicitation emails suggest the publisher prioritizes volume over selectivity. Some researchers report receiving invitations to submit to MDPI journals they've never heard of, which feels spammy.

What defenders say: The journals are indexed, peer-reviewed, and impact factors are rising. MDPI provides fast, affordable open access in fields where traditional journals are slow and expensive. The review is real, it's just faster and less selective than traditional venues.

The practical career impact: At research-intensive universities, an IJMS paper (IF 4.9) carries less weight than a paper in a traditional journal with a similar IF because of the MDPI perception. At institutions focused on research output metrics, IJMS is fine. Know your audience.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections among the papers we analyze.

Novelty framing that relies on publication gap rather than scientific gap. IJMS reviewers routinely flag papers whose introduction argues novelty by noting that "no study has examined X in Y organism" without explaining why the answer matters to the molecular sciences community. We see this pattern especially in descriptive genomics and proteomics papers. The MDPI guidelines require authors to articulate specific molecular mechanisms or functional insights, not just report a gap in the literature.

Inadequate experimental controls for MDPI's volume and speed model. The fast review turnaround (median 25 days) creates a misconception that IJMS applies lower methodological standards. We observe the opposite in practice: IJMS reviewers are familiar with the acceptance rate criticism and compensate by scrutinizing controls carefully. Papers with single-timepoint assays, missing negative controls, or n=3 without statistical justification are returned for major revision even when the central finding is sound.

Guest editor submissions that lack editorial positioning. IJMS publishes special issues with guest editors from specific research communities. We see authors submit to these collections without positioning the manuscript relative to the collection's stated scope, assuming the guest editor affiliation provides implicit fit. The guest editor must still justify acceptance to the journal editors, and papers without explicit connection to the collection's theme are rejected at the editorial level.

SciRev author-reported data confirms IJMS's 25-day median to first decision. A IJMS controls and mechanism check can assess whether your molecular sciences manuscript has the controls and mechanism depth that IJMS reviewers examine before your package reaches the guest editor.

• International Journal of Molecular Sciences journal profile