Is Nutrients (MDPI) Predatory? A Practical Verdict
Nutrients is not predatory. It has a 5.0 Impact Factor and MEDLINE indexing — but the 2018 mass resignation of editors over alleged pressure to accept weaker papers makes it MDPI's most complicated case.
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: No. Nutrients has a 5.0 Impact Factor, Q1 ranking in Nutrition and Dietetics, and PubMed/MEDLINE indexing. It is not predatory. But it has something most MDPI journals do not: a documented public conflict between its editors and the publisher over publication standards. The 2018 mass resignation, covered by Science magazine, is why Nutrients gets more scrutiny than comparable MDPI titles.
Why people ask the question
MDPI's Beall's list history (2014-2015, removed after appeal) drives background suspicion. Finland downgraded 193 MDPI journals to Level 0 in late 2024. Norway and other Nordic countries have taken similar actions. But for Nutrients specifically, the 2018 editorial crisis is the trigger.
In August 2018, Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Buckley and nine other senior editors resigned from Nutrients. Science magazine covered the story. The editors alleged that MDPI had pressured them to accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance. Buckley had wanted to raise Nutrients' rejection rate from approximately 55% to 60-70%. He believed the journal was publishing too many weak papers. MDPI's CEO, Franck Vazquez, disagreed with this direction. Guest editors reported receiving complaints from MDPI staff when they rejected too many submissions.
This was not fake peer review or fabricated metrics. It was a dispute about where to draw the quality line — and the editors felt the publisher was drawing it too low. That distinction matters because it separates Nutrients from the predatory journal question entirely.
Predatory journals do not have real editors who resign over quality concerns — they do not have real editors in the first place. The 2018 incident is actually evidence of Nutrients having had a genuine editorial culture, one that clashed with the publisher's growth priorities.
MDPI's Beall's list history (2014-2015, removed after appeal) is separate from the Nutrients-specific controversy but adds to the background suspicion.
What is actually true about Nutrients
Nutrients passes every standard legitimacy test. It ranks Q1 in Nutrition and Dietetics (17/112 on JCR) and Q1 in Food Science on Scopus. It is indexed in SCIE, Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE (since 2011), PubMed Central, Embase, and DOAJ. Its Impact Factor is 5.0, CiteScore is 9.2, SJR is 1.473, h-index is 243.
An IF of 5.0 puts it in the upper tier of nutrition journals — ahead of European Journal of Nutrition (IF 4.4) and British Journal of Nutrition (IF 3.0). Whether you view the rising IF as evidence that quality concerns were overblown or as evidence that citation metrics do not capture editorial standards depends on your perspective. Both interpretations have merit. After the 2018 resignations, MDPI appointed new editors. The current co-editors-in-chief are Maria Luz Fernandez (University of Connecticut) and Lluis Serra-Majem (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria). The journal's IF has actually risen since the controversy, from 4.2 in 2017 to 5.0 in 2024.
Publication volume grew by 3,903% from 2012 to 2022, with over 5,400 articles published in 2022. The APC is CHF 2,900. Estimated annual author payments to Nutrients exceed $16 million — creating an obvious financial incentive to maintain or increase volume.
Where the real risk sits
The 2018 resignations are the most concrete evidence in the entire MDPI debate that the publisher's business incentives can conflict with editorial judgment. Buckley wanted a rejection rate of 60-70%. The publisher preferred 55%. Guest editors felt penalized for rejecting papers. This tension is structural at MDPI, and Nutrients is where it became public.
Beyond the 2018 episode, the standard MDPI concerns apply: heavy reliance on special issues with variable guest editor quality, fast review timelines, and the financial incentive created by the revenue scale.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine documented that nearly 20% of Nutrients articles involve animal experiments despite the journal positioning itself as a human nutrition journal, generating an estimated $3 million in author fees. Retraction Watch reported in 2024 that Nutrients was still publishing animal research despite claims of additional checks. This is more of a scope and ethics debate than a predatory issue, but it adds to the sense that editorial criteria can be flexible when revenue is involved.
Finland's JUFO downgraded Nutrients to Level 0 alongside 192 other MDPI titles. Norway and other Nordic countries have taken similar actions. Like all MDPI journals, Nutrients relies heavily on special issues with guest editors of variable rigor, and the fast review timelines that apply across MDPI also apply here.
The better question than "is Nutrients predatory?"
The better question is whether you trust the journal's editorial process given its history. The 2018 incident is paradoxically evidence of a genuine editorial culture that clashed with publisher priorities.
If you need PubMed-indexed open access in nutrition science and the IF 5.0 fits your target, Nutrients delivers that. If you could target the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (IF 6.5), Clinical Nutrition (IF 6.6), or a society-published alternative like the Journal of Nutrition (IF 3.5), those carry less reputational baggage. If your institution uses Finland's JUFO, publication in Nutrients earns minimal credit.
Papers published during Buckley's editorship (pre-August 2018) went through a different editorial filter than those published after. Special issue papers were managed by guest editors of varying quality. Regular issue papers went through the journal's own pipeline.
How to evaluate Nutrients papers
For researchers reading, citing, or evaluating Nutrients papers, several practical considerations apply. Check the publication date — papers published during Buckley's editorship (pre-August 2018) went through a different editorial filter than those published after. Check whether the paper appeared in a regular issue or special issue, since special issues have variable quality depending on the guest editor.
Nutrients offers optional open peer review. If review reports are published, read them. A 5.0 IF journal publishing 5,000+ papers per year will have a wide quality distribution. The journal name tells you less than the methodology. Evaluate the paper on its own merits rather than assuming consistent quality across all output.
Practical verdict
Nutrients is not predatory. It has genuine indexing, real impact metrics, and PubMed/MEDLINE visibility. But it has a documented history of tension between editorial standards and publisher growth that most MDPI journals do not. The 2018 resignations remain the most important data point. Evaluate Nutrients papers individually rather than assuming the journal name guarantees consistent quality.
Know your institutional context and understand the journal's history before submitting. For the full picture on MDPI as a publisher, see our MDPI predatory assessment. To evaluate whether your manuscript fits Nutrients, try a free manuscript review.
Sources
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.