I was twenty-eight when I received my first email inviting me to submit to an MDPI special issue. It was flattering, urgent, and promising—fast publication, high visibility, open access. I was also finishing my PhD, desperate for publications, and tempted by the speed. But something made me pause. I had heard whispers in my department about MDPI. Some professors dismissed it outright. Others quietly published there. My supervisor, a traditionalist who had published only with Elsevier and Springer, warned me: “If you publish there, some people will question your judgment. Are you sure you want to take that risk?” I wasn’t sure. So I started researching. And what I found was not a simple answer. It was a story about a publisher that is both legitimate and controversial, respected and questioned, indexed and downgraded. And I realised that MDPI is not a simple yes or no. It is a decision that depends on your field, your career stage, and your specific journal.
If you are looking for a detailed, up-to-date review to help you make this decision, Premier Dissertations offers an honest and comprehensive analysis of MDPI’s reliability. You can explore it here: https://premierdissertations.com/is-mdpi-reliable/. This guide covers everything from MDPI’s indexing status to its peer review process and what your supervisor might think about it.
The first thing I learned was just how massive MDPI has become. Founded in 1996 in Basel, Switzerland, as a small open-access initiative, it now manages over 400 peer-reviewed journals across every major academic discipline. In 2025, MDPI received more than 669,000 manuscript submissions and published 261,576 peer-reviewed articles, while maintaining a rejection rate of over 60%. Its global workforce grew to 8,350 staff across 22 offices. These numbers are staggering. They show a publisher that has become a major player in academic publishing. But they also raise a question: can any publisher maintain quality at that scale?
The answer to that question is at the heart of the MDPI controversy. The publisher’s reputation is deeply polarised. On one hand, MDPI journals are widely indexed in major databases. In 2025, 329 MDPI journals were indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, and 355 in Scopus. Sixty-one MDPI journals ranked in the top quartile of their fields. A 2025 author survey found that 96% of MDPI authors rated their experience as excellent or good. On the other hand, MDPI has been the subject of persistent criticism. In December 2024, Finland’s Publication Forum downgraded 271 journals from MDPI and Frontiers to its lowest level, citing concerns about the “rigor” of their peer-review processes and their business model. The publisher has been called “highly problematic” by research fraud sleuths who point to “substantial evidence of questionable practices” regarding peer review, special issues, and citation practices. Germany’s decision to sign a national agreement with MDPI was condemned by critics who argued it would create “inappropriate incentives for scholars” to publish there. And MDPI was listed on Beall’s list of predatory journals in 2014–2015, a stigma that continues to affect its perception today.
The heart of the criticism is MDPI’s speed. On average, MDPI completes peer review within 30 days—far faster than most traditional publishers, where the process can take 130 days or more. This efficiency is a major attraction for researchers under tight timelines. But it raises a fair question: can a thorough peer review happen that fast? Critics argue that the speed comes at the expense of rigor. They point to the publisher’s heavy reliance on special issues—where periodicals invite scholars to propose and run publications on distinct themes—as a particular concern, noting that it is “impossible to verify the honesty and qualifications of all special-issue editors”. Some critics have also questioned MDPI’s citation practices, with one analysis finding that the publisher has “uniquely high-impact inflation”.
But the picture is not one-sided. MDPI has defended its practices vigorously. The publisher points to its rejection rate of over 60%, which is higher than many traditional journals. It has invested heavily in research integrity, appointing a head of publication ethics and a team of research integrity specialists. It has partnered with Proofig AI and developed in-house tools to detect image manipulation and other issues. Its journals are indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed—something that predatory publishers cannot achieve. And the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) conducted an inquiry into MDPI and allowed it to retain its membership, clearing it of predatory behaviour.
What does this mean for you? The answer depends on your situation. If you are an early-career researcher under pressure to publish quickly, MDPI’s speed can be a lifeline. Its open-access model also ensures your work reaches a global audience. But if you are aiming for a prestigious academic career, you need to be careful. Some institutions and supervisors still view MDPI with suspicion. A 2025 review notes that MDPI’s reputation varies significantly by discipline, and that the publisher’s fast workflow can sometimes result in uneven review quality. The same review advises researchers to evaluate each journal individually rather than assuming uniform quality across all MDPI outlets.
I eventually published in an MDPI journal. But I did it carefully. I chose a journal that was well-established, Scopus-indexed, and had a strong editorial board. I checked its impact factor and read recent articles to assess quality. I discussed my choice with my supervisor, who was satisfied with the journal’s reputation. The review process was fast—less than a month—but the reviewers were thorough and their feedback was constructive. My paper was published, indexed, and has since been cited by other researchers. It was a positive experience.
But I also know colleagues who had negative experiences—journals that accepted their papers with minimal review, or special issues that felt like paper mills. The key lesson I learned is that MDPI is not a monolithic publisher. Some of its journals are excellent; others are mediocre. The same is true of Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley. The difference is that MDPI’s scale and speed make the variations more pronounced—and more visible.
If you are considering publishing with MDPI, here is my advice. First, check the journal’s indexing status in Scopus and Web of Science. Second, look at the journal’s impact factor and quartile ranking. Third, read recent articles from the journal to assess quality. Fourth, discuss your choice with your supervisor. Ask directly: “Would you be comfortable with me submitting to this MDPI journal?” This one question can save you months of uncertainty. Fifth, have a backup plan. If your supervisor says no, ask them to recommend an alternative journal in the same field. And finally, never, ever pay for a guaranteed publication. Whether you publish with MDPI or any other publisher, the research you have worked so hard on deserves to be published in a journal that respects the integrity of the peer review process.
The publication journey taught me something I will never forget. There is no single right answer when it comes to MDPI. The right choice depends on your field, your career stage, your funding situation, and your personal values. What matters is that you make an informed choice. The research you have worked so hard on deserves nothing less.