What is wrong with MDPI: Is it a predator or a serious competitor?

Pasi Fränti

2024-11-05

Abstract:Hunt for predatory journals is based on binary division of the publishing world to legitime and predatory journals. This leads to difficulties in labeling publishers like MDPI with questionable practices. However, the root cause is not the publisher itself but the problems in the peer review system. These problems have created markets for the for-profit publishers shaking the understanding of conservative researchers and their belief about what is good science. In this paper, we analyze the problems via examples based on our own experience as author, reviewer, guest editor, associate editor, and editor-in-chief. We discuss how MDPI has addressed these problems.

Digital Libraries

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problems that this paper attempts to solve mainly focus on the following aspects:

1. **Identification and Classification of Predatory Journals**:
- The paper discusses the methods and limitations of identifying predatory journals through binary division (legitimate journals and predatory journals). The author points out that this binary division method has difficulties in practical applications, especially for publishers like MDPI. Some of its journals may have some controversial practices, but it cannot be simply classified as a predatory publisher.

2. **Fundamental Problems in the Peer - Review System**:
- The author believes that the real problem in identifying predatory journals does not lie in the publishers themselves, but in the problems existing in the peer - review system. These problems include the inefficiency of the review process, the low quality of reviews, and editorial decisions based on secondary criteria (such as elitism, topic bias, importance bias, rule bias, etc.). These problems have led to chaos in the academic publishing market, allowing some for - profit publishers to take advantage of these loopholes.

3. **MDPI's Practices and Responses**:
- The paper analyzes MDPI's specific practices in dealing with problems in the peer - review system, such as through an efficient review process, actively seeking suitable reviewers, and using incentive mechanisms (such as vouchers) to increase reviewers' enthusiasm. These measures have improved the publishing efficiency to a certain extent, but have also triggered discussions about whether it is too commercialized and affects academic quality.

4. **Evaluating Papers Instead of Journals**:
- The author suggests focusing the evaluation directly on the quality of individual papers rather than the quality of the entire journal. By evaluating the methodological rigor and the correctness of the results of each paper, the value of academic achievements can be more accurately reflected, thereby reducing excessive dependence on journal brands and impact factors.

In conclusion, the main purpose of this paper is to explore the problems existing in the academic publishing field and propose methods to improve the peer - review system in order to improve the quality and efficiency of academic publishing.