Is Sustainability (MDPI) Predatory? A Practical Verdict

The journal was founded in 2009. Its current editor-in-chief is Steve W. Lyon (Ohio State University). It is indexed in both SCIE and SSCI, reflecting its cross-disciplinary scope bridging natural science and social science. It is also in Scopus and DOAJ.

Its Impact Factor is 3.3, 5-year IF is 3.6, CiteScore is 5.0, SJR is 0.688, h-index is 207. It ranks Q2 in Environmental Studies on JCR and Q1 in Geography, Planning and Development on Scopus. The Scopus categories also include Energy Engineering, Renewable Energy, Computer Science, and Computer Networks - an unusually broad range.

Annual output peaked at over 17,000 articles in 2022 (comparable to PLOS ONE), declining to approximately 13,500 in 2023. The APC is CHF 2,400. Estimated acceptance rate is around 40%. The journal grew from 78 articles in 2009 to 17,000+ in 2022. No traditional editorial system scales from 78 to 17,000 without fundamental changes in how quality control works.

When self-citations are removed from the Impact Factor calculation, the number drops by 38.96% - the largest self-citation-driven decline among studied MDPI journals, where the average drop was 14.8%.

The risk is scale, scope, and the special issue infrastructure.

As of March 2021, Sustainability had 3,303 open special issues and only 24 regular issues - a ratio of 138 to 1. The journal was opening nearly 10 new special issues per day. If each special issue hosts 6-10 papers, the journal was soliciting 60-100 papers per day through special issues alone. The editorial board cannot possibly monitor thousands of special issues with the same attention. Guest editors become the real gatekeepers for the overwhelming majority of content, and their qualifications and rigor vary enormously.

The breadth of scope is simultaneously the journal's strength and its biggest vulnerability. "Sustainability" can be connected to nearly any research topic, maximizing the submission pool but making consistent editorial expertise across all papers nearly impossible at 17,000 articles per year.

Norway and Finland acted on this journal specifically, not just on MDPI generally. These are not symbolic gestures - both countries directly tie research funding to publication outputs in approved journals. The 38.96% self-citation drop further suggests the official IF overstates the journal's independent citation impact. MDPI reports reducing special issue content from 88% to 55% of articles, but it is unclear how much of this reduction applies specifically to Sustainability.

The better question is whether the reputational cost is worth it.

If you are based in Norway (no publication credit) or Finland (Level 0, minimal credit), the answer is likely no. If your paper could target Environmental Science and Technology (IF 10.8), Journal of Cleaner Production (IF 10), One Earth (IF 15.3), or a discipline-specific venue, those carry stronger signals. If you need fast open-access publication with Web of Science indexing and the IF range works, Sustainability is technically legitimate - but understand that it is the MDPI journal where institutional skepticism is most advanced and most consequential.

Check regular versus special issue tracks before submitting. Look at the special issue size - one with 5-8 focused papers is normal, one with 40+ across loosely related topics is a volume play. Vet the guest editor's expertise in the topic.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Sustainability, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

Pattern 1: Scope camouflage without sustainability integration. Sustainability's editorial guidelines require that submissions "address sustainability from a cross-cutting perspective." We regularly see papers from materials science, business management, or education that add "sustainability" to the title and introduction without integrating sustainability metrics, frameworks, or outcomes into the actual methodology. The editors catch this quickly because they process thousands of submissions monthly and the pattern is obvious at the abstract stage.

Pattern 2: Descriptive case studies without generalizable findings. The journal's guide for authors states manuscripts should provide "new insights that go beyond local interest." Single-city or single-institution case studies that describe a sustainability initiative without testing hypotheses or producing transferable knowledge get desk-rejected at a high rate. The editorial team has tightened this filter since the volume criticism began.

Pattern 3: Weak literature positioning in oversaturated topic areas. Because Sustainability covers everything from urban planning to corporate governance to renewable energy, some topic areas have hundreds of existing papers in the journal. Submissions that don't position against the journal's own prior coverage (not just the broader literature) look redundant. We've seen papers with solid methodology get rejected because the editors could point to three similar papers already published in the same special issue track.

Before submitting, a Sustainability scope and novelty framing check can identify scope-fit issues and flag whether your manuscript's framing matches what Sustainability's editors are currently accepting.

For researchers evaluating Sustainability papers as a reader, reviewer, or committee member, check regular versus special issue track. Papers in regular issues went through the journal's main editorial pipeline. Special issue papers were managed by guest editors of varying quality. A special issue with 5-8 focused papers is normal; one with 40+ papers across loosely related topics is a volume play.

Check the guest editor's record if the paper came from a special issue. Do they have expertise in the topic? Have they published their own papers in the same issue? Do not write off the paper because of the journal - Sustainability publishes genuinely excellent research alongside weaker papers. At 17,000 articles per year, the variance is enormous, and individual papers should be assessed on their own merits.

Sustainability is not predatory by standard indexing definitions. It has real SCIE/SSCI coverage, a real Impact Factor, and a functioning editorial process. But it operates at a scale that has made multiple national research systems uncomfortable enough to act. Two Nordic countries have removed or downgraded it. Scopus paused to reevaluate. The special issue ratio of 138-to-1 is unprecedented in academic publishing. If you publish here, know the institutional landscape in your country and field, and understand that this journal carries more reputational risk than most MDPI titles.

For the full picture on MDPI as a publisher, see our MDPI predatory assessment. To evaluate whether your manuscript fits Sustainability, try a manuscript readiness check.

• Is Hindawi Predatory? A Practical Publisher Verdict

• Is Thesify Worth It? AI Academic Review Assessed (2026)

• Is MDPI Predatory? A Practical Publisher Verdict

• Is Materials (MDPI) Predatory? A Practical Verdict

Publish if:

• The journal is indexed in SCIE/Scopus for your field
• Peers in your specific area respect publications here
• You are submitting to a regular issue with strong guest-editor oversight
• Your institution's evaluation counts this journal

Think twice if:

• Senior colleagues in your field are skeptical of MDPI
• You need prestige signals for tenure, promotion, or job market
• A society journal or more selective venue would accept the same paper
• Your country's research evaluation has flagged MDPI journals