Is IJMS Predatory? A Practical Verdict

IJMS was founded in 2000 and has been indexed in SCIE for over 20 years. Its editorial board reportedly exceeds 5,000 members, organized across dozens of specialized sections. Section editors-in-chief include researchers like Maurizio Battino (Marche Polytechnic University) and Jose L. Quiles. Each section functions as a semi-autonomous editorial unit.

Its Impact Factor is 4.9, CiteScore is 9.0, SJR is 1.273, and h-index is 314 — rivaling journals with decades more history. It ranks Q1 in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. It is indexed in SCIE, Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Embase, and DOAJ. The APC is CHF 2,900 (approximately USD 3,200). The estimated acceptance rate of approximately 30% makes it more selective than most MDPI journals. Median time to first decision is about 19.5 days.

IJMS has a higher IF than Journal of Biological Chemistry (IF 4.0) and FEBS Letters (IF 3.4), with comparable APCs but much faster review. The trade-off is publisher reputation and the quality distribution inherent in a 17,000-paper-per-year journal.

The risk is quality distribution at scale. At 17,000 papers per year — approximately 15,800 in 2022 and 17,000 in 2023 — the quality range is inevitably wider than at a more selective journal. Managing that volume requires an editorial infrastructure unlike anything at a traditional journal, which IJMS addresses with approximately 5,000 editorial board members and semi-autonomous section editors.

The best IJMS papers are genuinely excellent. The weakest ones may have passed a review process that, given the volume, did not apply the same scrutiny a specialty journal would.

Special issues are the primary concern. Like all MDPI journals, IJMS runs a high volume of guest-edited special issues where quality depends on the individual guest editor. MDPI reports reducing special issue content from 88% of articles (2022) to 55%, but special issues remain the dominant pathway. At IJMS's scale, the number of simultaneously running special issues is enormous.

The 19.5-day median time to first decision is fast for molecular biology research, where reviewers often need to evaluate experimental protocols, blot images, sequencing data, and statistical analyses. Whether that speed is compatible with thorough review on every one of 17,000 annual papers is the core question critics raise.

The better question is whether IJMS is the right venue for your paper. If your molecular biology work is solid, you want PubMed/MEDLINE-indexed open access, and the Q1 ranking fits your career needs, IJMS offers competitive metrics with faster turnaround than most alternatives. The MEDLINE indexing gives it a meaningful edge over MDPI journals that lack it.

If your paper could compete at Nucleic Acids Research (IF 14.5), EMBO Journal (IF 8.3), or similar selective venues, the career value of a more prestigious publication typically outweighs the speed advantage. If your institution has restricted MDPI publications or uses Finland's JUFO, know the consequences before submitting.

Check which section handles your topic — quality can vary by section since each functions as a semi-autonomous unit.

If you decide to submit, check which section handles your topic — the journal covers everything from inorganic chemistry to molecular medicine, and quality depends heavily on which section managed the paper. Target regular issues over special issues when possible.

For researchers evaluating IJMS papers, look at citation performance. An IJMS paper with 50+ citations has clearly contributed value, regardless of publisher reputation. The MEDLINE indexing gives IJMS papers strong discoverability in biomedical literature. Distinguish the journal from the publisher — IJMS's metrics are stronger than most MDPI journals. Treating all 430+ MDPI journals as equivalent does not reflect reality.

IJMS is not predatory. It is a Q1 journal with 20+ years of SCIE indexing, MEDLINE coverage, and an h-index of 314. The volume is the legitimate concern — at 17,000 papers per year, quality variance is inevitable. The practical question for researchers is whether the quality signal from a Q1 mega-journal carries the same weight as Q1 status from a more selective venue. In many institutional contexts it does. In some it does not. Know your context before you submit.

For the full picture on MDPI as a publisher, see our MDPI predatory assessment. To evaluate whether your manuscript fits IJMS, try a free manuscript review.