Is Your Paper Ready for Applied Sciences (MDPI)? An Honest Look at the Broadest Open-Access Journal

You can't understand Applied Sciences without understanding MDPI. The publisher operates a model that's fundamentally different from Elsevier, Springer Nature, or Wiley, and it shapes everything about the editorial experience.

Speed is the product. MDPI's entire workflow is built around fast turnaround. Two to four weeks for first decision isn't a marketing claim; it's what most authors actually experience. The publisher uses an in-house editorial team that manages the review process aggressively, sending multiple reminders to reviewers and replacing non-responsive ones quickly. If you've ever waited six months for a decision at an Elsevier journal, MDPI's pace will feel almost disorienting.

Guest editors run special issues. A large fraction of Applied Sciences papers come through special issues, which are organized by external guest editors who recruit submissions around a specific theme. This isn't inherently bad, but it changes the review dynamics. Guest editors vary widely in how strict they are. Some run a tight ship with genuine peer review. Others are more lenient, and the acceptance rates for certain special issues can run noticeably higher than the journal average.

Volume is a feature, not a bug. MDPI's business model depends on publishing a lot of papers. Each one generates an APC. This doesn't mean they'll publish anything, but it does mean the editorial incentive structure is different from a subscription journal. At a subscription journal, the editor's job is to fill a fixed number of pages with the best possible content. At an APC-funded megajournal, the editor's job is to filter out technically flawed work while keeping the pipeline moving. That distinction matters.

I'm not saying this makes Applied Sciences a bad journal. It doesn't. But you should go in with your eyes open about the model you're participating in.

Despite the broad scope and relatively high acceptance rate, Applied Sciences does reject papers. Here's what trips people up.

Technical soundness is the floor. The journal doesn't ask whether your results are exciting or novel. It asks whether your methods are appropriate, your data supports your conclusions, and your statistical analysis is correct. This is the same "soundness not significance" model that PLOS ONE popularized. If your experimental design is solid, your paper has a real chance here even if the results aren't earth-shattering.

Scope fit still matters. "Applied" is the operative word. Purely theoretical work without any connection to practical application doesn't fit. A mathematical proof without engineering context, a philosophical analysis without empirical grounding, or a basic science study with no applied angle will get desk-rejected. You don't need to solve an industrial problem, but there should be a clear line between your findings and some real-world application.

Completeness over ambition. Applied Sciences wants a self-contained paper. That means complete methods, full datasets (or data availability statements), proper controls, and conclusions that don't overreach. A modest study done well will fare better than an ambitious study with obvious gaps.

English language quality. MDPI journals have a reputation for being more forgiving on language than some competitors, but Applied Sciences editors do flag papers with poor English during initial screening. If English isn't your first language, get a colleague to proofread or use a language editing service. The journal offers one through MDPI, though you're free to use any service you prefer.

Let's talk honestly about special issues, because they're a defining feature of Applied Sciences and a common source of confusion.

MDPI publishes hundreds of special issues per year across its journals, and Applied Sciences alone hosts a staggering number of them. You'll often receive email invitations to submit to a special issue. These invitations aren't scams, but they aren't exactly curated either. MDPI sends them broadly, often based on keyword matching with your previous publications.

Here's what you should know:

Special issue papers go through peer review. They aren't pay-to-publish bypasses. Reviewers evaluate them, and papers do get rejected.

But the review intensity can vary. Guest editors pick their own reviewers and set their own standards (within MDPI's framework). A special issue organized by a well-known research group in your field will likely have rigorous review. A special issue from an editor you've never heard of, on a topic so broad it could include almost anything, may not be held to the same bar.

Your paper won't be labeled differently. Whether you submit to a special issue or the regular track, your published paper looks the same in databases and citations. Readers won't know unless they look at the special issue collection page.

My advice: if you're invited to a special issue that genuinely matches your work and is run by someone credible in your field, it's a fine route. If the invitation feels random and the topic is suspiciously broad, submit through the regular track instead. You'll get the same journal and potentially tighter review.

Even with a 45-50% acceptance rate, half of all submissions don't make it. Here's why.

1. The paper isn't actually applied. I've seen purely theoretical manuscripts submitted here because the scope looked broad enough. It isn't. If your paper doesn't connect to a practical problem, application, or technology, it won't pass triage.

2. Incomplete methods. If someone can't reproduce your work from what you've written, reviewers will flag it. This is the most common reviewer complaint across all MDPI journals. Don't assume readers know your standard protocols. Spell them out.

3. Statistics that don't hold up. Underpowered studies, inappropriate tests, missing error bars, and cherry-picked results. Applied Sciences reviewers may not always be the top experts in your narrow subfield, but they can spot basic statistical problems.

4. Recycled content. MDPI runs plagiarism checks using iThenticate. Papers with high text overlap with the authors' previous work get flagged. If you're building on a conference paper, you need to add at least 50% new content and cite the conference version.

5. Overreaching conclusions. Stating that your lab-scale demonstration "could revolutionize the industry" without any evidence for scalability or economic viability. Keep your claims proportional to your evidence. Reviewers appreciate honesty about limitations.

Since Applied Sciences is fully OA under CC BY 4.0, you can deposit the published version anywhere: your institutional repository, ResearchGate, your personal website. There are no embargo periods. This is one of the genuine advantages of MDPI's OA model. You own the copyright to your work under the Creative Commons license.

A Applied Sciences (MDPI) manuscript fit check at this stage can identify scope mismatches and common structural issues before you finalize your submission.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Applied Sciences, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

No quantitative comparison against existing solutions (~35%). The engineering or applied science paper that describes a system without providing quantitative performance validation against existing solutions. The Applied Sciences author instructions require that claimed improvements be demonstrated through systematic comparison, and editors consistently reject papers that present features of a new system without benchmarking it against what already exists. In our experience, roughly 35% of desk rejections we see trace to this gap.

Simulation only, no hardware or real-world validation (~25%). The signal processing or control systems paper without experimental validation on hardware or real-world datasets. Editors consistently treat algorithm performance demonstrated only through simulation as incomplete for an applied journal; papers without experimental confirmation are returned before external review. In our experience, roughly 25% of control and signal processing submissions we review fall into this category.

Missing ethics documentation (~20%). The biomedical engineering paper without ethical approval documentation and informed consent statement. Editors consistently desk-reject submissions involving human subjects or patient data when ethics committee approval or the informed consent statement is absent from the manuscript. In our experience, roughly 20% of biomedical engineering papers we see at Applied Sciences are missing one or both of these statements.

Properties without application context (~15%). The materials science paper that reports new formulations without connecting material properties to the intended application performance. Editors consistently treat property characterization without application context as outside the journal's applied-science scope. In our experience, roughly 15% of materials submissions we review fail to make this connection explicit.

Site-specific case study without transferable methodology (~10%). The renewable energy systems paper that models a specific installation scenario without demonstrating generalizability of the design methodology to other sites or configurations. Editors consistently treat site-specific results without transferable design principles as engineering reports rather than scientific contributions. In our experience, roughly 10% of energy systems papers we review are rejected for this reason.

Before submitting to Applied Sciences, an Applied Sciences manuscript fit check identifies whether your validation approach, ethics documentation, and application framing meet Applied Sciences' editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Ready to submit if:

• You can pass every item on this checklist without qualifying language
• An experienced colleague in your field has read the manuscript and agrees it's competitive
• The data package is complete - no pending experiments or analyses
• You have identified why Is Your Paper Ready for Applied Sciences (MDPI) specifically (not just prestige) is the right venue

Not ready yet if:

• You skipped items on this checklist because you "plan to add them later"
• The methods section still has draft or incomplete protocol text
• Key figures are drafts rather than publication-quality
• You cannot articulate what distinguishes this paper from recent Sciences (MDPI) publications

Submission criteria, APC, and editorial process verified against MDPI author guidelines for Applied Sciences, April 2026. JCR 2024 data: IF 2.5, JCI 0.52, Q2 (rank 50/175 in its primary category). Indexed in Web of Science (SCIE) and Scopus.