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.
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.
MDPI legitimacy signals: what the evidence shows
Signal | Status | Detail |
|---|---|---|
Beall's List | Removed 2015 | Added 2014, successfully appealed, removed after OASPA review |
OASPA membership | Active | Cleared after inquiry; membership retained |
Web of Science indexing | Yes | Most MDPI journals carry JCR impact factors |
Chinese Academy of Sciences | Cleared 2025 | All MDPI journals removed from CAS warning list |
Special issue volume | ~40,000/year | ~500 special issues per journal annually (2021 data) |
Post-publication concerns | Flagged 2025 | Learned Publishing study found undisclosed post-publication changes |
Peer review model | Real but fast | Median 2-3 week turnaround raises depth-vs-speed questions |
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.
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:
If you want a direct call on whether your paper should go to an MDPI title at all, manuscript readiness check is the best next step.
Should you publish in MDPI?
Publish if:
- 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
Think twice if:
- Senior colleagues in your field view the publisher skeptically
- You are on the job market and need strong prestige signals
- The APC is not covered by your funder or institution
- A society journal or more selective venue would accept the same paper
- Your country's research evaluation system has flagged this publisher
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Before you submit
A manuscript readiness check identifies the specific issues that trigger desk rejection before you submit.
Frequently asked questions
Not in the simple way authors usually mean. MDPI runs real journals with real indexing, real APCs, and real editorial workflows. But it also uses a high-volume special-issue model that many researchers and institutions view more skeptically than traditional publishers.
Because of its scale, speed, and reliance on special issues. Those features create recurring concerns about consistency, guest-editor oversight, and whether volume pressure distorts quality control.
Yes, briefly in 2014 to 2015, before removal after appeal. That history still shapes search behavior, but it is not enough by itself to settle the question today.
Usually not fake publishing. The real risk is that some committees, institutions, and senior researchers treat MDPI placements cautiously, especially in journals or special issues they see as too broad or too fast.
Ask whether a specific MDPI journal is trusted in your field, whether the submission route is a strong regular issue or a weaker special issue, and whether the journal gives your paper the right long-term signal.
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 (2024).
- 5. What is wrong with MDPI?, Pasi Franti, arXiv (2024).
- 6. Chinese Academy of Sciences journal warning list - 2025 revision, ResearchGate discussion with CAS list context.
- 7. Beall's List of potential predatory publishers, maintained post-Beall.
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
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.