Fact Check: Are MDPI journals predatory or not?

Are MDPI Journals Predatory or Not?

Introduction

The question of whether MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) journals are predatory has sparked considerable debate within the academic community. Critics argue that MDPI employs practices characteristic of predatory publishers, while supporters claim that the organization has made significant improvements in its publishing standards. This article will explore the various perspectives on this issue, examining the evidence and claims surrounding MDPI's publishing practices.

What We Know

MDPI's Background: MDPI was founded in 1996 and has grown rapidly, increasing its journal count from 218 in 2019 to 426 in 2023, and its article output from 36,000 in 2017 to 303,000 in 2022 3. It was initially included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers in 2014 but was removed in 2015 after an appeal 1.
Claims of Predatory Practices: Some sources assert that MDPI employs practices typical of predatory journals, such as aggressive solicitation of articles and questionable peer review processes 3. A 2021 article that assessed MDPI journals as predatory was retracted and replaced with a version that softened its conclusions 4.
Counterarguments: Supporters of MDPI argue that not all of its journals are predatory and that each journal should be evaluated individually based on its reputation and editorial practices 5. MDPI has also issued statements defending its legitimacy and criticizing anonymous websites that label it as predatory, such as predatoryreports.org 2 7.
Expert Opinions: Discussions among academics on platforms like ResearchGate indicate a divide in opinion, with some experts suggesting that while certain MDPI journals may have issues, it is inaccurate to label all MDPI journals as predatory 5 10.

Analysis

The debate surrounding MDPI's status as a predatory publisher is complex and multifaceted.

Source Evaluation

Wikipedia: While it provides a general overview of MDPI's history and controversies, Wikipedia entries can be edited by anyone, which raises concerns about reliability. However, it cites credible sources for its claims 1.
Ethical Publishing: This source critiques MDPI's practices and highlights the lack of transparency in some evaluations of the publisher. However, it may exhibit bias against MDPI, as it focuses on negative aspects without providing a balanced view 2.
Predatory Journals: This site claims to provide a systematic analysis of MDPI's practices, but it is important to consider its potential bias, as it focuses on identifying predatory behaviors 3 6.
Retraction Watch: The retraction of a critical article about MDPI suggests that the initial assessment may have been flawed or overly harsh. The retraction itself raises questions about the reliability of the claims made against MDPI 4.
ResearchGate Discussions: These discussions reflect a range of expert opinions, indicating that the academic community is not monolithic in its views on MDPI. The variability in expert assessments suggests that further investigation into specific journals may be warranted 5 10.

Methodological Concerns

The methodologies used to assess whether MDPI is predatory vary significantly. Some analyses rely on subjective criteria, while others may lack rigorous peer review or transparency in their evaluation processes. This inconsistency complicates the assessment of MDPI's practices and raises questions about the validity of claims made by both critics and supporters.

What Additional Information Would Be Helpful

To better understand the status of MDPI journals, it would be beneficial to have:

Comprehensive, peer-reviewed studies evaluating the editorial practices and peer review processes of specific MDPI journals.
Transparency reports from MDPI detailing their editorial standards and practices.
Independent assessments from recognized academic bodies or organizations that specialize in evaluating journal quality.

Conclusion

Verdict: Partially True

The claim that MDPI journals are predatory is partially true, as there are valid concerns regarding some of their practices, such as aggressive solicitation and peer review processes. However, the evidence also indicates that not all MDPI journals can be categorized as predatory, and many have made strides in improving their standards. The debate is further complicated by the variability in expert opinions and the subjective nature of the criteria used to assess journal quality.

It is important to note that the evidence available is not definitive, and the methodologies used to evaluate MDPI's practices vary widely. This lack of consensus within the academic community suggests that while some MDPI journals may exhibit predatory characteristics, others may not. Readers should approach this topic with a critical mindset and consider the nuances involved in evaluating journal quality.

As always, it is advisable for readers to critically evaluate information themselves and seek out comprehensive assessments before forming conclusions about the legitimacy of any publisher or journal.