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

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.

Self-archiving and green open access

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.

The pre-submission checklist

Before you submit, run through these questions:

• Is your work genuinely applied, with a clear connection to a real-world problem or technology?

• Are your methods detailed enough for independent reproduction?

• Do your statistical analyses match your study design and sample size?

• Have you run a plagiarism check against your own previous publications?

• Are your figures publication-quality with proper labeling and resolution?

• Have you included a data availability statement?

• If submitting to a special issue, have you verified the guest editor's credibility?

• Does your abstract contain specific results (numbers, percentages, effect sizes), not just vague statements?

If you answered yes to all of these, your paper is probably ready. If you're unsure about technical soundness or methods completeness, run your manuscript through a Applied Sciences (MDPI) submission readiness check before submitting. It'll catch structural gaps, missing methods details, and statistical red flags faster than self-review after you've been staring at the same draft for weeks.

The honest bottom line

Applied Sciences isn't a prestige journal. It doesn't pretend to be. What it offers is fast, affordable, indexed open-access publication for technically sound applied research. That's a legitimate need, and the journal fills it well. Over 15,000 papers a year can't all be wrong.

But you should be strategic about when to use it. If your paper is competitive for a Q1 field journal, send it there first. You won't get the same career signal from an Applied Sciences publication as you would from a top-tier venue in your discipline.

If your paper is solid but not strong enough for the top tier, or if you need fast publication for a grant deadline, or if you're building a publication record early in your career and need accessible venues, Applied Sciences is a reasonable choice.

Don't treat it as a dumping ground for rejected manuscripts. Treat it as what it is: a large, fast, open-access journal that values technical quality over flashy results. Submit your best version of the paper, not the version that got rejected elsewhere with "we'll fix it in revisions" still lingering in the methods section. Even with a 45-50% acceptance rate, sloppy work gets caught.

In Our Pre-Submission Review Work

For manuscripts targeting Applied Sciences, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

No quantitative comparison against existing solutions. 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, this is one of the most common gaps behind a desk rejection.

Simulation only, no hardware or real-world validation. 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, many control and signal processing submissions fall into this category.

Missing ethics documentation. 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, biomedical engineering papers are frequently missing one or both of these statements.

Properties without application context. 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, materials submissions often fail to make this connection explicit.

Site-specific case study without transferable methodology. 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, energy systems papers are sometimes 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.

• The work is genuinely applied, with a clear line from your findings to a real-world problem or technology

• The methods are detailed enough for independent reproduction (full protocols, parameters, settings)

• The statistics match the study design and sample size, with proper controls and error bars

• You include a quantitative comparison against existing solutions, plus a data availability statement and ethics/consent where human subjects are involved

• You can articulate why Applied Sciences (fast, affordable OA) is the right venue rather than a Q1 field journal

• The paper is purely theoretical with no applied angle (it will fail triage on scope)

• The validation is simulation-only with no hardware or real-world dataset

• The methods assume the reader knows your "standard protocols" rather than spelling them out

• A biomedical-engineering paper is missing ethics-committee approval or the informed-consent statement

• You are sending the version that got rejected elsewhere with gaps still in the methods