Is Remote Sensing (MDPI) Predatory? A Practical Verdict
Remote Sensing is not predatory. It has a 4.2 Impact Factor and Q1 rankings in geosciences — but MDPI's special issue model and review speed are the real concerns.
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. Remote Sensing is indexed in SCIE (Q1 in Geosciences), Scopus (Q1 in Earth and Planetary Sciences), and DOAJ. It has a 4.2 Impact Factor, a CiteScore of 8.6, and is led by a USGS scientist who has held the position for over 14 years. Its founding editor resigned publicly over a flawed paper in 2011 — the kind of accountability you never see from a predatory publisher.
Why people ask the question
MDPI's Beall's list history (2014-2015, removed after appeal) creates background suspicion. Finland downgraded 193 MDPI journals to Level 0 in late 2024. Norway has been critical of MDPI broadly. These publisher-level events, combined with MDPI's aggressive email solicitations, drive the "is it predatory?" searches.
Remote Sensing also has a unique history. In July 2011, it published a controversial climate-skeptic paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell that challenged mainstream climate models. The paper drew immediate and intense criticism from climate scientists. Founding editor Wolfgang Wagner (Vienna University of Technology) resigned in September 2011, stating the paper was fundamentally flawed and should not have passed peer review. He took personal responsibility for the editorial failure.
This incident matters for two reasons. First, it shows peer review can fail at this journal, as it can at any journal. Second, the public resignation and accountability are the opposite of what you would see at a predatory publisher. Predatory publishers do not acknowledge editorial failures because they do not have real editorial processes to fail.
What is actually true about Remote Sensing
The journal was founded in 2009. After Wagner's resignation, Prasad S. Thenkabail of the USGS became editor-in-chief and has led the journal since, alongside co-editor-in-chief Dongdong Wang (University of Maryland). The editorial board includes over 600 geoscience researchers from departments, space agencies, and remote sensing laboratories worldwide.
Its Impact Factor is 4.2, 5-year IF is 4.8, CiteScore is 8.6, SJR is 1.019, h-index is 217. It ranks Q1 in Geosciences (Multidisciplinary) and Imaging Science on JCR, and Q1 in Earth and Planetary Sciences on Scopus. The acceptance rate is approximately 36% (based on 2019 data: 3,047 published from 8,381 submitted), making it considerably more selective than many MDPI journals. Annual output is 4,000-6,000 articles. The APC is CHF 2,700.
Remote Sensing benefits from being one of MDPI's better-run journals. Its acceptance rate is well below the MDPI average. Its editor-in-chief has been in place for over 14 years, providing editorial continuity. Its metrics are among the strongest in the MDPI portfolio.
Clarivate delisted two MDPI journals (IJERPH and JRFM) in 2023 and suppressed some impact factors in 2024 for citation manipulation. Remote Sensing was not affected in either case. China's CAS Early Warning List flagged some MDPI journals in 2020-2024 but has since removed all MDPI titles.
Where the real risk sits
The risk is the MDPI model, not the journal's fundamentals.
Like all MDPI journals, Remote Sensing relies heavily on special issues managed by guest editors. In 2022, 88% of all MDPI articles appeared in special issues (since reduced to 55%). With submissions growing 48% year-over-year (2019 data), maintaining editorial standards across potentially hundreds of simultaneous special issues is the central challenge. Quality depends on the individual guest editor.
A 2019 analysis found that Remote Sensing had an intra-MDPI citation rate of 47.56%, meaning nearly half of its citations came from other MDPI publications. High self-citation does not necessarily indicate manipulation — researchers in niche fields naturally cite work from the same journals — but 47.56% is high enough to suggest citation metrics may be somewhat inflated by publisher-level patterns.
Review speed (approximately 19 days to first decision, 39 days total to publication) is fast for a field covering complex topics like hyperspectral imaging, LiDAR analysis, and satellite data processing. For context, traditional geoscience journals typically take 2-4 months for first decision and 6-12 months for total publication.
The better question than "is Remote Sensing predatory?"
The better question is where Remote Sensing fits in the geoscience hierarchy. If your paper could target Remote Sensing of Environment (IF 11.1), ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (IF 12.2), or IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (IF 8.6), those venues carry stronger selectivity signals and society backing.
If you need fast open-access publication with Q1 indexing and the IF fits, Remote Sensing is a legitimate venue with an acceptance rate more selective than many MDPI titles. Prefer regular issue submissions over special issues when possible, and vet the guest editor if submitting to a special issue.
If your institution uses Finland's JUFO system, publication here earns minimal credit. Check whether your hiring committee or grant panel views MDPI favorably.
How to evaluate Remote Sensing publications
For researchers reading or citing Remote Sensing papers, check whether the paper came from a regular issue or special issue. Regular issues go through the journal's standard editorial pipeline. For special issue papers, look at the guest editor — are they a recognized expert in the topic, and have they published excessively in their own issue?
Remote sensing papers should include validation against ground truth data or established benchmarks. A journal name does not substitute for methodological rigor. Check the review timeline — Remote Sensing offers optional open peer review, and if reports are published, they provide useful context on the scrutiny the paper received.
Practical verdict
Remote Sensing is not predatory. It has Q1 indexing, a credible editorial team led by a USGS scientist, and an acceptance rate around 36% that is more selective than the MDPI average. The 2011 Spencer-Braswell affair was an editorial failure, not a predatory practice, and the founding editor's resignation demonstrated real accountability. The standard MDPI concerns — special issues, review speed, self-citation patterns — apply, but this journal's individual track record is stronger than most in the portfolio.
For the full picture on MDPI as a publisher, see our MDPI predatory assessment. To evaluate whether your manuscript fits Remote Sensing, 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.