Why MDPI Is Not a Predatory Publisher
January 14, 2026 - Reading time: 8 minutes
From time to time, one hears the claim that MDPI (https://www.mdpi.com/) is a "predatory journal". I would like to state clearly at the outset that, according to any reasonable metric, MDPI does not meet the definition of a predatory publisher. The main reason it is often perceived as such is that it operates under a different funding and publishing model than traditional subscription-based journals, which makes it stand out from long-established publishers.
Below, I address the most common characteristics of predatory journals and explain why they do not apply to MDPI.
What Is a Predatory Journal?
A predatory journal (also called a predatory publisher, deceptive journal, or pseudo-journal) is a fraudulent or exploitative academic publication that presents itself as a legitimate scholarly outlet while prioritizing profit over scholarly quality, transparency, and editorial integrity. Common warning signs include fake or nonexistent peer review, misleading fees, unprofessional presentation, and unrealistically fast acceptance.
1. Peer Review Quality
One hallmark of predatory journals is the lack of real peer review, often accompanied by promises of "rapid review" within days or even hours.
This has not been my experience with MDPI. I have published several articles in MDPI journals (a small number relative to my total publications), primarily in my professional journals, Universe and Particles. Notably, Universe lists Prof. Roger Penrose (Nobel Prize in Physics) as a member of its advisory board since 2017. In every MDPI submission I was involved in, the manuscript received at least three independent peer reviews, all of which were substantive and professional. The typical time from submission to acceptance was approximately three to four months.
In recent years I have submitted several papers with collaborators to journals such as Physical Review D, JHEP, and JINST. In each of those cases, the paper was reviewed by only a single referee. While these journals are prestigious, the increasing difficulty they face in securing multiple reviewers is concerning from the perspective of review robustness.
It is also worth noting that the impact factors of journals such as Physical Review D, Physics Letters B, Eur. Physical Journal C. and JHEP have been significantly inflated in recent years due to large experimental collaborations (e.g., CERN) publishing high-citation results there. While this reflects their historical prestige, it does not necessarily correlate with the depth or rigor of double-blindpeer-review process for individual submissions, since they have typically only one reviewer.
2. Transparency of Publication Fees
Predatory journals often hide or misrepresent publication fees. MDPI does not. Article processing charges are clearly and prominently stated on journal websites, and there is no ambiguity about costs at any stage of submission.
3. Website and Submission Infrastructure
Another common red flag is an unprofessional or misleading website. MDPI is, in fact, one of the most professionally designed publishing platforms currently available. Its infrastructure is modern and transparent, making extensive use of ORCID (https://orcid.org/) integration, Overleaf-based submissions (https://www.overleaf.com/), and detailed article webpages. These pages often include information about handling editors and, in some cases, referees — far more transparency than is offered by many traditional journals, whose websites still resemble designs from the 1990s.
4. Broad Journal Scope
A broad scope is sometimes cited as evidence of predatory behavior. In reality, this can be a strength. Many traditional journals have become increasingly narrow in scope, often lagging behind modern interdisciplinary research trends.
For example, the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS), developed by the American Institute of Physics and long used by APS journals, was last updated in 2010 and does not adequately reflect advances in areas such as data science, AI-assisted research, or emerging interdisciplinary fields. MDPI journals often employ more flexible and modern classification systems, which better accommodate contemporary research directions.
5. Speed of Publication
Predatory journals are known for extremely fast acceptance and publication, often incompatible with serious peer review. Again, this does not match my experience with MDPI. Typical turnaround times of three to four months are entirely consistent with rigorous review, especially when multiple referees are involved.
Final Remarks
In recent years, many high-profile international conferences have chosen MDPI journals for publishing their proceedings. This reflects a level of acceptance and trust within the broader scientific community that would not exist if MDPI operated as a predatory publisher.
Finally, I want to emphasize that having multiple independent reviewers is a clear advantage. Peer review is inherently subjective: A single reviewer’s opinion can be strongly influenced by personal taste, stylistic preferences, workload, or even mood. Journals that rely on only one referee (as is often the case for JHEP, JINST, Physical Review Letters, or Physical Review D) risk biased or insufficiently scrutinized decisions.
By contrast, the use of two or three reviewers, as is common in MDPI journals, allows for better detection of errors, identification of oversights, and mitigation of individual bias. In this respect, MDPI’s editorial practice often exceeds that of many traditional journals.
This is where MDPI truly stands out — and why it should not be labeled as predatory.
by Dr. S.V.Chekanov (find me at schekanov[AT]jwork.org)
Note: I am not affiliated with MDPI, nor am I an editor for any MDPI journal. I have simply observed that MDPI can be a good publishing option in cases where traditional journals lack relevant PACS classifications or reject articles based on a single review.
