Is Materials (MDPI) Predatory? A Practical Verdict

MDPI's history on Beall's list (2014-2015, removed after a formal appeal reviewed by four members of Beall's appeals board) drives most searches. Finland downgraded 193 MDPI journals to Level 0 in late 2025. Norway has been critical of MDPI broadly. Clarivate delisted two other MDPI journals in 2023, though Materials was not among them. In 2023, Predatory Reports added all MDPI journals to its predatory list - a controversial decision.

MDPI also sends a high volume of solicitation emails - invitations to submit, to guest-edit, to join editorial boards - that feel similar to predatory publisher tactics but constitute aggressive marketing rather than fraud.

For Materials specifically, the numbers that draw attention are the acceptance rate and the special issue count. In January 2020, Materials had 846 special issues scheduled for that single year. That is not a typo. Special issues across MDPI's journals outnumber regular issues by more than 2:1 in over 92% of the publisher's portfolio.

Materials was founded in 2008 and has been indexed in SCIE since 2011 and Scopus since 2008. Its editor-in-chief, Prof. Maryam Tabrizian of McGill University, has held the position since founding. The editorial board includes approximately 170 materials science researchers worldwide.

Its Impact Factor is 3.2 (5-year IF: 3.5), placing it Q2 in Materials Science (Multidisciplinary), Q2 in Metallurgy, and Q2 in Applied Physics and Condensed Matter. Its CiteScore is 6.4, SJR is 0.614, h-index is 191. It is also indexed in Scopus (Q1 in Condensed Matter Physics, Q2 in General Materials Science) and DOAJ. Annual output is approximately 7,000-9,000 articles. The APC is CHF 2,600.

None of these characteristics are consistent with predatory publishing. Predatory journals do not maintain SCIE indexing for 14+ years, accumulate h-indexes of 191, or have editors-in-chief at top-50 global universities.

The risk is the acceptance rate and the special issue model.

At approximately 65%, Materials' acceptance rate is significantly higher than Acta Materialia (~20-25%), Advanced Materials (~10%), or even Journal of Materials Science (~40%). A 65% acceptance rate does not mean the journal publishes anything - desk rejection still filters clearly unsuitable work - but the bar for acceptance is lower than at most materials science venues.

The 846 special issues in a single year mean guest editors become the real gatekeepers, and their qualifications and rigor vary enormously. Each special issue has a guest editor who manages submissions. At that volume, the editorial board cannot possibly monitor all of them. Some guest editors run tight ships. Others use special issues as vehicles for their own publications or networks. MDPI reports reducing special issue content from 88% to 55% of articles, but the infrastructure remains a defining feature.

Review speed is also notably fast: 15-16 days to first decision, 35-37 days total to publication. For context, the materials science community typically expects 2-4 months for first decision and 6-12 months for total publication. Materials is roughly 4-5 times faster than this norm. Whether meaningful materials science peer review - evaluating characterization data, testing protocols, structural analysis - can consistently happen in two weeks is the question critics raise.

MDPI's overall retraction rate (2.01 per 10,000 publications) is actually lower than Springer Nature, Wiley, or Elsevier, though a low retraction rate could reflect less aggressive post-publication scrutiny rather than higher quality.

The better question is whether Materials' selectivity matches your standards. If you need fast, open-access publication with SCIE indexing and the IF range fits your needs, Materials is a legitimate option. If your paper could realistically target Acta Materialia, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, or a comparable society-published journal, those venues carry stronger selectivity signals.

If your institution uses Finland's JUFO system (Level 0, earning only 0.1 points vs 1.0 for Level 1) or Norway's national index, publication in Materials may not serve your career. Target regular issues over special issues when possible, and vet guest editors carefully.

If you decide to submit, target a regular issue rather than a special issue when possible. Regular issues go through the journal's main editorial pipeline, which provides more consistent oversight than individual guest editors. If submitting to a special issue, vet the guest editor - check their publication record, h-index, and whether they have published excessively in their own special issues.

Expect fast turnaround. If your paper comes back with reviewer comments in 10 days and the feedback is superficial, you are not obligated to accept perfunctory peer review. Track your paper's citations over time - Materials papers that attract citations are indistinguishable from papers in any other Q2 journal.

For researchers evaluating Materials papers, the journal name tells you less than the methodology. Quality varies at this volume, so assess the work on its own merits.

Materials is not predatory. It has legitimate indexing, a qualified editorial board led by a McGill professor since 2008, and stable impact metrics. Its 65% acceptance rate is high, its special issue volume is extraordinary, and its review speed makes some researchers uncomfortable. These are fair criticisms of a high-volume publishing model - not evidence of predatory behavior.

For the full picture on MDPI as a publisher, see our MDPI predatory assessment. To evaluate whether your manuscript fits Materials, try a manuscript readiness check.