Is Materials (MDPI) Predatory? A Practical Verdict
Materials (MDPI) is not predatory. It has a 3.2 Impact Factor and SCIE indexing — but its ~65% acceptance rate and extraordinary special issue volume are the real concerns.
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: No. Materials is a SCIE-indexed journal with a 3.2 Impact Factor, a CiteScore of 6.4, and an editor-in-chief at McGill University who has led it since 2008. It is not predatory. But its estimated 65% acceptance rate — roughly double or triple that of comparable materials science journals — and its extraordinary special issue volume are legitimate concerns about selectivity that researchers should understand.
Why people ask the question
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 2024. 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.
What is actually true about Materials
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.
Where the real risk sits
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 than "is Materials predatory?"
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.
How to navigate Materials submissions
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.
Practical verdict
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 free manuscript review.
Sources
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.