Is MDPI Predatory? A Practical Publisher Verdict

MDPI runs real journals with real APCs, real journal websites, real editorial processes, and broad indexing across much of its portfolio. Authors can inspect journal instructions, journal indexing pages, and publisher workflow information directly.

That is a meaningful distinction. Predatory publishers typically hide, fake, or misrepresent those basics. MDPI does not operate that way.

So the word "predatory" is usually too blunt to describe the real problem.

The stronger criticism of MDPI is about its operating model, not about fake publishing.

The recurring concerns are:

• heavy dependence on special issues

• variable oversight quality across journals and guest editors

• pressure created by scale and speed

• uneven trust across institutions, countries, and fields

That is why authors can encounter a genuine split in opinion. Some researchers treat MDPI as a normal broad open-access option. Others see it as a publisher that requires extra caution, especially in journals or issue formats that appear overly expansive or too loosely curated.

The evidence does not support calling MDPI predatory. It does support treating MDPI as a publisher where journal-level and issue-level judgment matters more than at traditional society publishers.

This source boundary separates three evidence classes because the MDPI question is easy to overstate.

That boundary matters for authors. A page that only says "MDPI is legitimate" misses the career risk; a page that only says "MDPI is predatory" collapses a large, uneven publisher into a slogan.

MDPI is not one journal. It is a large portfolio, and the reputation signal is not uniform across that portfolio.

A stronger MDPI title with real indexing and recognizable community uptake is a different proposition from a weaker, broader, or more weakly supervised title. A regular issue can also be a different proposition from a special issue whose guest-editor quality is unclear.

That is why broad publisher-level debates rarely answer the actual submission question for an author.

No. The safer answer is that MDPI journals should not be treated as one reputation category.

The plural query, "are MDPI journals predatory," usually hides three different questions:

This is also why Beall's-list history is not enough by itself. MDPI was listed in 2014 and says it was removed on 28 October 2015 after a formal appeal, but the current author decision should rest on current journal-level evidence: indexing, editorial board credibility, article quality, special-issue governance, APC transparency, and how your institution reads that exact title.

The same caution applies to newer predatory-list claims. A blacklist can tell you that controversy exists, but it cannot tell you whether your exact MDPI journal, regular issue, guest-edited special issue, and career context make sense. Treat those lists as a reason to investigate, not as a substitute for journal-level due diligence.

For most authors, the useful question is:

Is this specific MDPI journal, and this specific submission route, trusted enough in my field to justify the tradeoff?

That means checking:

• whether the journal itself is respected in your area

• whether the work is going to a regular issue or special issue

• whether your institution or evaluation system treats the journal cautiously

• whether a stronger non-MDPI alternative would give the paper a better long-term signal

If you need a fast screen, use this order:

1. Check the exact journal in Web of Science, Scopus, and DOAJ instead of relying on the MDPI brand.
2. Read three to five recent articles in your topic area and ask whether they look like papers your target readers would cite.
3. Inspect the editorial board and special-issue guest editors for field-specific credibility.
4. Compare the APC against the best non-MDPI venue you could realistically target.
5. Ask a senior colleague how that exact journal would be read on a CV, grant report, or promotion file.

The practical risk of an MDPI paper depends less on the publisher label than on who will evaluate the publication later.

This is why the decision should happen before upload. Once a paper is accepted and the APC is paid, the author cannot recover the signaling value that a stronger first-choice venue might have provided.

Across our pre-submission review work on manuscripts considering MDPI and peer open-access venues, the recurring problem is not that authors cannot find a real journal page. It is that they mistake "real journal" for "good long-term signal." Those are different questions.

Methodology note: this page was updated from official MDPI publisher pages, OASPA membership records, MDPI special-issue guidance, public criticism of guest-editor concentration, and Manusights submission analysis. Sources used include publisher pages, membership records, and published reporting; we do not use private MDPI editorial data.

MDPI fit pattern 1: the paper needs speed, but the abstract is still too generic. Authors often consider MDPI because a fast decision would help a thesis, grant, or promotion timeline. We observe this specific risk pattern most often when the first 150 to 200 words do not make the journal fit obvious. If the abstract reads like a broad topic summary instead of a field-specific claim, a fast workflow can still lead to a fast rejection or a publication that senior readers discount.

MDPI fit pattern 2: the special issue looks topical, but the methods section is not issue-specific. A special issue invitation can make the submission feel pre-qualified. It is not. The manuscript still has to show why its methods, sample size, controls, statistical analysis, and data availability belong in that issue rather than in the journal's regular stream. When those components are thin, the special issue route becomes a reputation risk rather than a shortcut.

MDPI fit pattern 3: the journal is indexed, but the career context is wrong. Indexing in Web of Science, Scopus, or DOAJ answers only one part of the question. A postdoc applying for a selective fellowship, a clinician seeking department approval, and a senior researcher publishing a narrow methods paper face different risks from the same MDPI acceptance. In our review workflow, the most useful decision is often not "MDPI or not MDPI"; it is whether this exact manuscript needs prestige, speed, open access, or a cleaner journal-fit signal.

Before submitting, check the current journal page, APC page, editorial board, and SuSy submission route. Also check the article instructions for concrete constraints: in many MDPI journals, the abstract is limited to 200 words, while figure and data availability requirements, reference style, and journal-specific word or page guidance vary by title. If those details are hard to verify, do not treat the publisher-level brand as enough.

• The journal is indexed in Web of Science and Scopus for your field

• The specific journal (not just the publisher) is respected by your peers

• You are submitting to a regular issue, not a loosely curated special issue

• Your institution's evaluation system counts publications in this journal