Sustainability Acceptance Rate

Sustainability accepts roughly 35-45% of submissions. With over 30,000 submissions per year and 12,000-15,000 papers published annually, it is one of the highest-volume academic journals in existence. For context, that publication count exceeds many entire publishers' annual output.

To place it on the selectivity spectrum:

• Nature Sustainability: ~5% acceptance (extremely selective, novelty-driven)
• Journal of Cleaner Production (JCP): ~20-25% acceptance
• Science of The Total Environment: ~30% acceptance
• Sustainability: ~35-45% acceptance
• MDPI Environments: ~50%+ acceptance

Sustainability is on the accessible end for indexed, peer-reviewed journals in environmental and sustainability science. That accessibility is by design, MDPI's model emphasizes soundness over novelty, and the journal's broad scope means it doesn't turn away methodologically solid work just because it lacks novelty.

MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) is a Basel-based publisher that operates over 400 open-access journals. Sustainability is one of their largest and most established titles, launched in 2009. Understanding how MDPI works helps you interpret the acceptance rate correctly.

The publishing model. MDPI journals use a soundness-based review model, meaning papers are evaluated primarily on methodological rigor rather than perceived novelty or impact. This is the same philosophy behind PLOS ONE and similar mega-journals, if the science is sound, the journal will consider publishing it. That model naturally produces higher acceptance rates than novelty-gatekeeping journals.

The volume question. Critics point to MDPI's sheer output as evidence of lax standards. The counterargument: high volume is a feature of the soundness model, not necessarily a quality failure. However, the speed and scale do mean that review depth can vary. Some papers receive thorough, constructive review; others get superficial feedback from reviewers who are stretched thin across too many MDPI invitations.

Special Issues. A large fraction of Sustainability papers come through Special Issues organized by Guest Editors. MDPI actively solicits Guest Editors and encourages them to invite submissions. This system generates volume efficiently but has drawn criticism because Guest Editors sometimes lack the seniority or independence expected of traditional editorial gatekeepers. For authors, it means the editorial track your paper enters affects the quality of review you receive.

The reputation reality. In some fields and hiring committees, MDPI journals carry a perception penalty. This varies enormously by discipline and geography. In European environmental science and engineering, Sustainability is widely used and generally accepted. In fields where journal prestige carries more weight in hiring decisions, the MDPI label can be a disadvantage. This is not about the journal being predatory (it isn't) but about academic culture around journal brands.

Sustainability covers an intentionally broad scope: environmental sustainability, social sustainability, economic sustainability, urban planning, resource management, climate change adaptation, circular economy, sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and related interdisciplinary work.

The breadth means many papers fit. The challenge is that "sustainability" can mean almost anything, and reviewers do assess whether the sustainability framing is genuine or superficial. A materials science paper that adds a paragraph about sustainability without genuinely engaging with the concept will get pushback, or should.

Despite the relatively high acceptance rate, Sustainability does desk reject a meaningful fraction of submissions. Triggers include:

Out of scope. Papers that are purely technical or scientific without sustainability relevance, or papers in fields that don't connect to sustainability (pure fundamental physics, clinical medicine without environmental angle).

Scientific rigor failure. Papers with no control conditions, vague methods, or conclusions that can't be drawn from the data are screened out. This happens more than critics of MDPI journals acknowledge.

Duplicate publication. Manuscripts that overlap substantially with published work.

Language quality. MDPI maintains a minimum English quality threshold. Papers where scientific evaluation is impeded by language problems get returned.

Academic editors make desk decisions, typically within 5-10 days.

Sustainability uses external peer review managed by academic editors (Guest Editors for Special Issues, or section editors for regular submissions). Typically 2 reviewers are assigned.

What reviewers look for:

Methodological soundness. Is the research design appropriate for the question? Are controls present? Is the statistical analysis appropriate? These are the primary reviewer gates.

Genuine sustainability contribution. Reviewers do ask whether the sustainability framing is substantive. A study that measures something environmental but doesn't connect to sustainability policy, practice, or understanding may be pushed back as not fitting the journal's purpose.

Novelty threshold. Sustainability does not require breakthrough novelty, but it does expect that the study adds something to the existing literature. Replications without clear value-add can be rejected.

Literature engagement. Are relevant prior studies cited? Is the contribution situated in the existing body of work?

Sustainability is one of the faster journals in its tier:

• Desk decisions: typically 5-14 days
• Full peer review: 14-30 days
• First decision after review: 3-7 additional days
• Total: roughly 25-45 days from submission to first decision

This is substantially faster than most Elsevier or Springer journals in the same field. For researchers working on time-sensitive policy-relevant topics, this timeline is a genuine advantage. For more detail, see Sustainability review time.

Accept after minor revision: Common. Clarification of methods, improved discussion, minor additions to literature review.

Major revision: Less common than at higher-selectivity journals, but it happens when reviewers require additional analysis or expanded methods section.

Rejection after review: Papers where reviewers find fundamental methodological problems or scope mismatch that passed desk screening.

Desk rejection: Out of scope, quality problems, or language issues.

Sustainability charges CHF 2,700 (approximately USD 3,000) APC. MDPI has institutional discounts and waivers available. Many European institutions have Transformative Agreements with MDPI covering APCs. For a full breakdown, see Sustainability APC guide.

At that price point, the APC is comparable to many Elsevier hybrid OA fees but higher than some society journals. Whether it's worth it depends on your funding situation and how much you value the speed and open-access defaults.

Here is the straightforward take on Sustainability as a publication venue in 2026:

It is a real, indexed, peer-reviewed journal. It is not predatory. It appears in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed Central. Papers published there count in every formal sense.

The review quality is variable. Some papers receive genuinely helpful, rigorous review. Others get rubber-stamped by overextended reviewers. You cannot control which experience you'll have, but submitting to a well-matched Special Issue with an active Guest Editor improves your odds.

The JIF reflects the journal's position accurately. A JIF of 3.3 is respectable but not competitive with the top-tier sustainability and environmental journals. If your paper is strong enough for Journal of Cleaner Production (IF 10.0) or Resources, Conservation and Recycling (IF 11.2), you should try those first.

MDPI perception varies by field. Ask colleagues in your specific discipline how hiring committees, grant panels, and promotion committees view MDPI publications. The answer will differ between European environmental engineering and North American social science.

Submit if:

• Your research is within sustainability scope and you've confirmed it with recent published papers
• Methods are sound and you can defend them
• You need a faster timeline than traditional society journals
• Open access is required and you have access to APC funding or institutional agreement
• A JIF around 3 meets your career needs

Consider alternatives if:

• Your work fits a specialty journal with higher IF and similar scope (JCP, STOTEN)
• You're concerned about journal reputation in your specific field
• Prestige matters for your career stage (early-career researchers should consider how hiring committees view MDPI journals in their discipline)
• Your paper has genuine novelty that could place in a more selective venue

Read 5-10 recent papers in Sustainability in your specific topic area. Check that the journal is actually publishing research like yours. If the methods, framing, and topic type match what you see in recent issues, you're likely scope-appropriate.

If you want objective feedback on manuscript readiness, a Sustainability framing and methods rigor check checks your paper against the journal's specific criteria.

In our pre-submission review work evaluating manuscripts targeting Sustainability (MDPI), three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections and reviewer-round failures. Each reflects the journal's standard: genuine sustainability engagement, methodological soundness, and a contribution that adds to the existing literature.

Sustainability framing added as a wrapper to technical or disciplinary research. The failure pattern is a paper conducting technical analysis in materials science, chemistry, or engineering with a sustainability framing applied to the introduction and conclusion without the sustainability question driving the research design. Academic editors at Sustainability evaluate whether the sustainability dimension is the research question or a narrative device. During triage, papers where the methods section would be unchanged if the sustainability framing were removed are identified as scope-thin submissions. A concrete example: a paper characterizing the mechanical properties of a novel composite material, where the introduction notes that the composite could contribute to lightweight vehicle design and therefore fuel efficiency, and the conclusion claims sustainability implications, but the study itself measures tensile strength and hardness with no lifecycle assessment, energy comparison, or environmental outcome data. The desk screen is not fooled by sustainability language in framing sections when the research design is disciplinary.

Methods section too vague for scientific evaluation. The failure pattern is a paper presenting survey results, case study findings, or environmental data without sufficient methodological detail for replication or evaluation. This appears more at Sustainability than at selective journals because authors assume the high acceptance rate means less methodological scrutiny. Reviewers still evaluate whether the study design is appropriate, controls are present where relevant, statistical analysis matches the data type, and sample characteristics are described clearly enough to assess transferability. Papers with survey instruments not reported, sampling procedures described only generically, or statistical tests applied to data that violate their assumptions receive major revision requests or rejection. The soundness screen catches these issues even when the novelty bar is low.

Contribution not differentiated from prior work. The failure pattern is a paper presenting findings consistent with, and not differentiated from, existing literature without explaining what the study adds. Sustainability reviewers ask what a researcher would learn from this paper that prior studies on the same topic, region, or methodology do not already provide. A study measuring residential energy consumption in a mid-sized city and finding that income and dwelling type are predictors, without comparison to prior studies in similar contexts or explanation of why this city provides new insight, is not a contribution even at a soundness-based journal. The novelty bar is low but not zero: the paper must add something the literature does not already contain. A Sustainability submission readiness check can assess whether the paper's sustainability framing and contribution claim are strong enough for Sustainability's editorial standard before submission.

The 2024 JIF of 3.3 is down from 3.9 in 2021. The decline reflects normalization of COVID-era citation inflation across environmental and sustainability journals rather than a decline in scope or quality. Sustainability's JIF trajectory mirrors MDPI's broader growth story: rapid indexing gains from 2015-2021, followed by stabilization as the citation landscape normalized.

SciRev author-reported data confirms Sustainability's 14-30 day median to first decision after review, with desk decisions typically within 5-14 days.