Why researchers should think twice to publish in MDPI journals

The publisher of many scientific journals, MDPI has been under the spotlight for unethical practices for a long time now. This was escalated with the recent death of an employee at their Romanian office and the inside information revealed with that. This raises the question whether the researchers should consider publishing in MDPI any more. In most of the institutions MDPI is a complete NO for publishing. Therefore, the researchers should carefully consider their choice to publish in MDPI journals given mounting concerns about the publisher's practices and quality control. According to the unfolding news their business model explicitly prioritizes quantity over quality - editors receive more performance points for accepting papers than rejecting them, and staff report being pressured to push manuscripts toward publication to meet aggressive targets. The company's practice of mass-soliciting guest editors (40-50 emails weekly) and launching numerous special issues appears driven more by volume goals than scientific merit.

The publisher's declining academic standing is evident in multiple journals being downgraded in rating systems or removed from major indexing services (SCIE - Clarivate analytics). This deterioration of reputation could impact how publications in MDPI journals are viewed by the broader academic community. The peer review process itself may be compromised, as staff report being discouraged from selecting reviewers with high rejection rates, while facing pressure to process manuscripts quickly to meet performance metrics.

Recent reports about MDPI's workplace culture raise further ethical concerns. Staff complain of a toxic work environment with extreme pressure and invasive monitoring suggest an organizational culture that significantly compromises academic integrity.

For researchers considering where to publish, these issues warrant serious consideration. While MDPI offers rapid publication timelines, this speed appears to come at the cost of thorough peer review and quality control. Scientists should weigh the immediate benefit of quick publication against potential long-term impacts on their academic reputation. Alternative open access publishers with better standing in the academic community may provide a more reliable venue for research publication. At minimum, researchers should perform due diligence by checking journal standings, reviewing recent publications for quality, and consulting senior colleagues before submitting to MDPI journals. The collective evidence suggests that the risks to academic reputation may outweigh the benefits of rapid publication. Early-career researchers in particular should avoid MDPI entirely rather than risk their reputation with a publisher known for inconsistent quality.