Is MDPI Predatory? A Practical Publisher Verdict
MDPI is not a clean fit for the word predatory, but it is also not a publisher authors should treat casually. The real question is journal-by-journal trust and strategic fit.
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: MDPI does not fit the clean, classic definition of a predatory publisher. But it also should not be treated like a neutral default. The real issue is whether a specific MDPI journal, and often a specific issue route, is trustworthy enough for your field and goals.
Why people ask the question
MDPI attracts this question because it combines three things that make academics uneasy:
- very large scale
- fast editorial timelines
- heavy use of special issues
Those traits do not automatically make a publisher predatory. They do, however, create the kinds of consistency and incentive questions that researchers care about when choosing where to publish.
That is why MDPI sits in a more uncomfortable category than obviously legitimate society publishers and more defensible than journals that are clearly fake.
What is actually true about MDPI
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.
Where the real risk sits
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.
Why the answer has to be journal by journal
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.
The better question than "is MDPI predatory?"
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
Practical verdict
MDPI is not best understood as a simple predatory/non-predatory binary.
It operates real journals and does not fit the classic fake-journal model. But it also uses a high-volume, special-issue-heavy system that has generated enough concern that many serious researchers treat MDPI submissions more cautiously than they treat society journals or top specialist publishers.
So the right posture is neither blanket dismissal nor blind acceptance. It is journal-by-journal judgment.
If you are deciding on a specific MDPI target, the best next reads are:
- MDPI journals quality assessment
- Is Applied Sciences predatory?
- Applied Sciences acceptance rate
If you want a direct call on whether your paper should go to an MDPI title at all, Manusights pre-submission review is the best next step.
Sources
- 1. MDPI about and history, MDPI.
- 2. MDPI editorial process, MDPI.
- 3. Grey area journals on level 0, Publication Forum (Finland).
- 4. Some guest editors pack special issues with their own articles, Science.
- 5. What is wrong with MDPI?, Pasi Franti.
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.