@Eric

I have published with Sustainability. It was very tough review process, and if you do not belive, chech my publications - I have a good basis to compare. We struggled for three rounds.

Secondly, I am reviewing for Sustainability. I never did this for any predatory journal.

And lastly - can you comment, how did they keep IF in JCR, if they are publishing rubbish? Lots of journals (From Serbia, for example) were excluded from JCR.

I am not advocating for MDPI, in a bib publishing hpuses there are many weak journals, but these did not last long.

I agree. Lets be clear, the identification of Predatory Journals cannot be based on the existence of a publication charge or a short timeline alone, but it is multiple factors simultaniously: In the cited MDPI journal Sustainability it is

1) Generally very short process timelines (this doesnt mean that some articles, e.g. from special issues with quality guest editors, have more rigorous processes),

2) mass publication through gigantic number of articles per issue (i.e. ~450 articles per issue, 24 times a year)

3) publicatio fees, ... and

4) ?.

BTW: For the indicated Nature-Group journal a timeline of below one month doesnt seem to be the standard and rather, for the indicated article and issue, driven by the time-critical topic of COVID-19. Still, I also understand now that in natural sciences timelines may be shorter than in social sciences, particularly in topics of high societal interest. The type of social-science-based "sustainability management" research published in Sustainability in typically 1-2 months will need timelines of 1 to 2 years in higher quality journals (e.g. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Business Strategy and the Environment, Organization & Environment).

Last but not least, thanks for the valuable citations to studies on predatory issues!

From the comments I see that every journal is different as is every publisher. I do not want to single out MDPI over other publishers in this depate, but my aim is to discuss the issue with regard to the specific experiences with MDPI's Sustainability journal - simply because 1) in my discpline people discuss about quality issues with this particular journal, 2) I have own experience with the journal by reading a breadth of articles in it, 3) the amount of publications as calculated above (average of 435 articles/issue) in combination with extremly fast timelines of 1-2 months simply raised concerns with me.

This narrower, journal-specific scope of the discussion is now clarified in the discussion's title (sorry for confusion).

Further, I don't think that the speed for finding reviewers and doing reviews (e.g. through extrinsic incentives) alone can answer timelines of 1-2 months from submission to publication. Because authors also have to revise the works and, in case of major revisions, this cannot always be done in a few days (at least not in my discipline).

OK, very respective journal, EJWM returned our article after more than 6 moth for the solely reasons "we could not find reviewers for it". It was the first time we got such decision from the Editor in chief :) not talking about the fact, that on submission they ask to provide reviewers.

The next was - yes, you guess - Sustainabilty. Paper was published after a long struggle with 3 reviewers.

thus, me, as Krzysztof Goniewicz become a reviewer for sustainabilty. And yes, they work hard. Deadlines are short. Layout and proofing - instantaeous.

I am not a reader of the most papers presented in Sustaibility. But those I was interested in, were not worse than on the other, some of you call "respectable" journals.

Several times I tried to discuss with a homemade "professor" here on RG, who, like Beal, invented his own list of predatory journals. No shit. To say that journal is predatory, we need facts - and their combination. Rapid publication time for the journals like Emerging Diseases orScience is OK, but for Animals r sustainabily is not allowed? Why, because they take AOC or because they had a better team than most pld-fashion journals? They pay for the work - for reviewers, editors, guest editors. Is this so bad?

can I know the journal names? I never heard of such a practice.

For me being fast and publishing a lot is not problematic. Being fast is actually a good thing. However, in my experience, in several instances, the peer review process in Sustainability was very questionable. In several instances, I recommended to reject severly flawed papers and pointed out the problems, but I was repeatedly overruled by editors (often from the publisher rather than academics) whose main interest appeared to be to push through the paper. For me that's the main point of peer review: quality control and gate keeping.

If we cannot make sure to keep flawed papers out, what is the point of having journals? In the specific case of Sustainability (and other MDPI journals), I have decided to stop reviewing and publishing there. For me the Frontiers journals appear to be the better alternative at the moment: More power with good researchers rather than the publisher with their commercial interests.

Desk-rejecting papers for citing predatory journals seems too harsh for me. Rather editors should educate authors, and the scientific community should move towards more awareness and boycotts of questionable journals.

At an organizational level, incentives to publish should be aligned with the quality of the work rather than the outlet. In many research organizations, people receive bonuses or are being evaluated on the basis of impact factors of the journals they publish in. As long as this is the case, Sustainability and MDPI have a business model, because people respond to incentives. We may stop including MDPI journals in the evaluation or at least we should maybe discount their value, because they do not enforce the same quality control standards as others.

I completely disagree with Jens Rommel 's assessment and conclusion.

I have been working with MDPI and “Sustainability” for years as an author, reviewer, guest editor and editor and like it more than ever. Very efficient, responsive, high quality, open minded, unbiased and innovative. Journals like “Sustainability” are extremely successful because of that!

That sometimes reviewers are overruled is nothing to worry about. In certain cases, this is exactly what I expect from an editor. Otherwise we won’t need them. It is their decision, they take the responsibility! By the way, all major decisions on papers are always taken at MDPI by an academic editor. No exception.

@Sascha Kraus: Fully agree with your post.

@everyone:

I agree that editors can and often should overrule reviewers (in either direction), but not if papers have severe flaws. That was my main point. I have never heard of a single case of a paper being rejected in Sustainability. I googled the journal's acceptance rate, and it appears to be well above 50%. That's ok, and it is nothing problematic per se, but it is much higher than for other journals. If there is a rigorous peer review process, all good. Not my personal experience from doing five reviews for them though.

According to my personal experience, length and depth of reviews and responses are not as good as elsewhere. Authors and reviewers are given very little time. I receive lots of unsolictited invitations from the journal to edit "special issues". One such invitation may be acceptable, but they keep sending reminders even if you tell them to leave you alone.

So, I agree that we need more open access and strong editors, but I don't think that Sustainability and MDPI do a particularly good job there. I would not go as far as calling them predatory, but there appear to be better open access models in this field (e.g., Ecology and Society, Int J of the Commons, or Frontiers in Environmental Science).

I missed to mention one feature of “Sustainability” and other MDPI Journals, I also like very much. Transparency! The option for authors for publish the reviews and responses along with the paper (quite often used) and the option for reviewers to disclose their identity (seldom used). Anyone who might question the quality of reviews and of revisions that are possible in a few weeks’ time might just check it.

Another innovation by MDPI which is only slowly gaining popularity (probably because it’s so unusual) is the “post publication peer review” model of the Journal “Sci” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sci. Very interesting model.

Just to add: I am often overruled in other journals, but I always see reason, and the editors explain their decisions well. Did not see this with Sustainability really.

I would probably rethink my review boycott if I receive an invitation from an editor whom I know and trust (like Volker :)) or if the paper is very interesting.

The main problem for me is to equate impact factors with quality. This appears to be more problematic in interdisciplinary environments (e.g., many excellent Economics journals have very low IFs by Natural Science standards; often they are also much lower than other social science journals, e.g. IF of AJAE is roughly equal to Sustainability).

I personally know of many papers which have been rejected. To be correct: The rejection rate for “Sustainability” in 2019 was 63% which means that the acceptance rate was 38%. See the Journal statistics: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/stats

37% of course, sorry for the typo!

@ Jens: thanks for your trust!

Ok. Interesting. Maybe my experiences coincide with a "weak phase" of the journal, or they are simply bad luck. Might rethink and give it another try.

@ Jens: that's what I like about scientists. Their open mind and willingness to rethink. Thanks for your response!

@ all

Maybe once again on transparency, business strategies and innovation. I’m deeply convinced that MDPI serves the scientific community in many respects.

Among others, they developed SicLit, a research engine for scientific literature which also allows for obtaining an overview about the publication market. See rankings. Very informative, perfectly up to date and completely free of charge. Check it: https://www.scilit.net/

They also developed the Journal Advisor platform which allows academics to evaluate the journals in which they have published: https://journalsadvisor.com/

It is not very known yet, but this might change.

It may go without saying that I'm quite happy to pay the APC for the services they deliver.

It has been getting trapped in a business-model no matter PhD education, coauthorship, or peer-review publications for last decade. Researchers or even students are often pushed or pulled to publish while academia has been widely commercialized. 10 years ago students in Germany would get a PhD degree with a monograph, but currently they have to get at least 3 peer-reviewed papers (so-called 'to qualify'). Besides, I have seen quite a lot of unqualified papers published within the 'special issues' by 'rigorous and top journals' in my field. In contrast, I do appreciate UK academia and scholars who usually disseminate their knowledge and results through university publishers (without IF) which are free of charge, fast and open-access. In this 'Predatory' game or business, in general, nobody is clean and MPDI is just the 'clever and successful' one matching the demand.

While the journal may write 24 days from submission to publication, it does not mean that every article submitted undergoes the same time frame.

The open review process is innovative and other publishers can learn from MDPI. The only problem with publishing with MDPI and other similar publishers, is the cost of open access publication. Not every author can afford such fees. There is a need to look for cheaper options of open access publication to all authors, while maintaining a high standard. It is repulsive to assume that authors from regions where people live on less than a dollar per day can afford to pay thousands of dollars to publish a single paper.

Another important angle to consider is the fact that some editors outrightly reject papers while giving flimsy excuses. Sometimes they feel you cited papers published by a rival publisher they consider predatory, forgetting the fact that you might publish in a predatory journal but that does not reduce the quality of your findings. Yet the same editor will send you papers to review. You feel one is fit to review for you but not fit to publish with you. Really strange and sad.

A lot needs to change, and the more we call for changes, the better the options to publish will become.

I just have read the following part part of the introduction, and I'm shocked:

"In discussions with colleagues and editors, I have learned that several respected scholarly journals have taken or plan to take measures against predatory open access journals. One of the most severe retaliation against predatory practices, I heard, is to desk-reject paper submissions citing MDPI’s journals. I agree that measures have to be taken in order to contain predatory practices and hope that editors and the scholarly community will stand together. "

From my perspective, it just shows the complete helplessness of some publishers and editors. They need to discredit others instead of improving their publication model! Besides MDPI, Frontiers is another extremely successful open-access publisher. They were also on Beall's list and many tried to discredit them too. Such a behavior and in particular a desk-rejection of paper submissions citing MDPI's journals would be a shame for the scientific community!

Agree with Sascha Kraus and Jens Rommel mostly ... but would like to add to Sascha's hypothetical question whether the journal "Is a scam?". Let's have a closer look at the Impact Factor (2019): it is 2.57 but only 1.71 without Journal Self Citations. A meta-analysis of Sustainability publications since its inception, published in the same journal, shows that 38.6% of citations are Journal Self Citations (see table 2): Article Ten Years of Sustainability (2009 to 2018): A Bibliometric Overview

Article On the skewness of journal self‐citations and publisher self...

This seem to be beyond "usual" journal self citation numbers and helps explaining why Sustainability has such a high impact factor. What's more, Copiello find some further seemingly manipulative practices such as new citations to retracted articles by the journal's own editors.

If indeed citation and therefore Impact Factor manipulation has been the case as Copiello suggests, Clarivate as well as journal rankings surely have to take a closer look into the journal's practices.

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I know from various colleagues and experienced it myself that reviews recommending rejection were ignored by Sustainability. I do not know any case where a CE or AE of a top journal would have just ignored a recommendation for rejection by an experienced researcher. There would always be a content lead deep discussion with the reviewer and some agreement before a decision is made. In doubt CRs and AEs of top journals tend to reject.

Reading papers published more recently in Sustainability show that careful crafting and careful editing is not always given. I agree with various colleagues that the quality level of published papers in Sustainability varies considerably. While journals with different quality levels exist, the key issue whether a journal is predatory or not is not the quality level per se but the rational when a submission is accepted or not. One important aspect is that if payment of a publication fee is more important than the quality of the review process and the finally published paper, then publication is bought: that kind of rationale shifts academic quality onto a sideline. If scientists want to be taken seriously then such a rationale needs to be prevented.

@ Erik Hansen

Yes, there might be a problem, but I don't think so. You can just check it here:

The self-citation share of Sustainability was 26% in 2019.

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100240100&tip=sid&clean=0

But compare Sustainability to Journal of Cleaner Production or Ecosystem Services.

The self-citation share in 2019 of the Journal of Cleaner Production was 20%.

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19167&tip=sid&clean=0

The self-citation share of Ecosystem services was 19%.

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100218523&tip=sid&clean=0

Now why would you say that Sustainabiliy manipulates the IP while the other do not? I don’t think this is manipulation at all!

But if we talk about manipulation of impact factors, I just like to remind about the “not so” funny fact that Elsevier Journals use to publish papers quite far the future. Just pick a journal, for example Ecological Economics, and you will find papers that are published in November 2020. Citable now!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/ecological-economics/vol/177/suppl/C

If you know how Impact Factors a calculated you can imagine the impact. You don’t call it manipulation, do you?

@ Erik Hansen

You cited a paper published in 2019 that use data from 2015. Why did the authors at that time not investigate the Journal of Cleaner Production for instance? The self-citation share in 2015 was 31.2% and in 2016 even 32.5%. You can check it here.

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19167&tip=sid&clean=0

Would you call on an investigation for the Journal of Cleaner Production? Would you think about desk-rejections of all papers that cite the Journal of Cleaner Production? I can hardly think so.

So please be so kind and don't use outdated and potentially biased research (a single case study) to support your argument. By the way the paper you mentioned is protected by a paywall....

I used to review for Sustainability a few times, and they definitely rejected some and enforced major revisions on others (same for other MDPI journals, by the way). The journal is clearly not predatory. However, I partly agree with Erik's observation. They publish tons of papers and a lot of them are rather weak (ranging from seriously flawed to simply insignificant). Therefore, I decided for the moment not to publish in or review for Sustainability any more, and I read the journal only very occasionally. I know quite a few colleagues from the US and Western Europe who also do not hold the journal in high esteem these days.

Erik G. Hansen

Please allow me to add my perspective on two issues raised. (1) the number of publications in Sustainability and (2) the publication speed.

(1) Should we worry if Sustainability publishes 10,000 papers in 2020? I don’t think so. There are mainly two reasons.

a) Sustainability is the topic of our lifetime. The subject area is growing fast. Also some other Journals in the same area grew very fast and to a similar size like The Science of the Total Environment (4888 papers published as of July 2020) or the Journal of Cleaner Production (3644 paper published as of July 2020). Where do you get such information? Please have a look here: https://www.scilit.net/statistic-journal?year=2020&srch-term=&rows=50

Further new journals have been recently established like Nature Sustainability or the series Frontiers in Sustainability https://www.frontiersin.org/journals?domain=sustainability

I warmly welcome these developments. As I said sustainability is the topic of our lifetime!

b) 10000 papers should be worrisome it the Journal is not supported by an adequate organizational and editorial structure. But that’s not the case. The structure well adopted to the growth of the Journal. It is supported by 12 section in chief editors, hundreds of topic editors and guest editors, 1689 members of the editorial board. That’s all fully transparent. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/editors

(2) The speed of the publication process might be worrisome as well. But again, I don’t think so. There are many factors that contribute to this speed. A very efficient and responsive workflow is one of them. Another one is that papers are prepared by using a template. This is very useful for authors, reviewers and editors. If you are used it, you don’t want to miss it. Third, the tight datelines for reviewers to review and for authors to revise are demanding, yes, but possible. It completely changed my way of conducting reviews. When I started in this business it was usual to provide you 3 months to conduct your review. They never send a reminder. Sustainability ask if you can do it in a week. Believe me, you are more likely to accept three month and then don’t deliver in time than to accept a week and don’t deliver. I got faster and better. I now quickly respond and either accept or reject the invitation and then I do reviews usually in a week (I do this now also in case of other non-MDPI journals). This equally applies to the revision of papers. By the way, besides the tight deadline reviewers and authors can always ask for an extension (and often do).

Erik G. Hansen

Please let me correct some more false and biased claims.

(1) MDPI is based in Basel not in Geneva. If you want, you can meet the professional, passionate and honest people behind the publisher there.

(2) MDPI is not a “money making machine”. It‘s funny how people (even economists) if they can count revenues easily believe it must be a money making machine and if they can’t count easily probably think publishers are non-profit. I advise anyone just to read the annual report and you know how they spend the money. See: https://res.mdpi.com/data/2019_web.pdf

(3) MDPI is in no way a predatory publisher. They supports the scientific community in many innovative ways. See SciLit (https://www.scilit.net/), preprints (https://www.preprints.org/) SciProfile (https://sciprofiles.com/), SciForum (https://sciforum.net/) and more. If you want to know more just read the annual report.

(4) You, and others, seemingly believe that MDPI is not supported by the ten thousands of respected editors, reviewers and authors that do their job every day professional and with dedictation. I can tell you: that’s deeply wrong!

Please allow me to correct some myths about editorial decisions as MDPI.

Some claim that major editorial decisions at MDPI are taken by non-academic in-house editors (managing editors) and not by academic editors. That’s wrong. Major decisions, in particular the final decision about a paper, are always taken by an academic editor! No exception.

Some claim that by accepting a paper the decision maker will benefit because the publisher MDPI earns the APC. That’s wrong! The academic editor in no way has a benefit (or a harm) from accepting or rejecting a manuscript (or from making any other decision on a manuscript). There is no link between the academic editors decision and the APC! Academic editors are completely independent in their decisions.

I think that these misunderstandings might be due to the fact that the communication between reviewers and editors are always mediated by the in-house managing editor. The academic editor thus can focus on her/his major task, decision making. This is might be unusual and therefore creates misunderstandings (in particular if someone is trapped in certain mental models). But the editorial process is completely transparently explained: https://www.mdpi.com/authors

Volker Beckmann , you are right. Managing editors are just hogher level technical workers, coordinating manuscript flow. At MDPI st least some of these are highly effective

Tobias Ide

If you think that some papers published in Sustainability are deeply flawed, I encourage you to write a comment. It's easily possible because Sustainability, as other MDPI journals, allows for post-publication evaluation. Just click on the comment function on the right hand side of the web-version of the article. Sure, you can also submit a comment paper or an expression of concern. Post-publication evaluation (if and only if the paper is published open access) is possible by millions of researchers, not just by a few reviewers. Most of us consider peer-review as the standard before a paper is published, but peer-review before publication is far from perfect. Post-publication reviews are therefore very important. Please check if your favorite journals allow post-publication reviews. I guess, they don't.

I really would like to read your comments on those claimed "deeply flawed" papers published in Sustainability. This would be an important contribution to the scientific community.

If you are interested in a pure post-publication peer-review journal please vist Sci.

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sci

Everyone who is interested in the future of academic publication is recommended to read the journal "Publications" also published by MDPI.

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications

Very interesting papers, very good reflections on many different aspects of academic publications, highly relevant for the scientific community.

Anything fundamentally wrong with "predators"? Why? Predation is part of the (eco-) system.

I do review for mdpi as well as traditional journals. For sheer fun and interest as well as mdpi’s superior review flow management. In this context, my reviews have always been fast, also for traditional journals.

The traditional journals seem to degrade over my decades of publishing and reviewing into co-option club periodicals. Both biased and extremely slow (please see my pertinent experience as related previously on RG). In short, my most cited journal articles have been rejected by chief editors without allowing peer review. The journal citation index of the rejecting chief editors was an order of magnitude below the number of current citations of the article published by an alternative journal.

If queried about non-response by traditional journals, the answer was that reviewers were difficult to find or did not deliver within the set timeline. In other words, a declaration of incompetence.

This is just a note for all reviewers of Sustainability who claim that "deeply flawed" papers have been published despite their recommended “rejection”. I encourage you to publish your reviews on Puplons. Sustainability and all MDPI journals allow you to do so: see https://publons.com/journal/27615/sustainability/

Just do it, let us know about your assessment of the papers and we can make up our own opinion. Not many other publishers allow you to do that.

Linas Balciauskas , thank you for you kind response. Yes, the division of labor at MDPI works amazingly effective and good. However, it's seemingly difficult to understand, probably because it's so different. Let's hope we contribute to a better understanding of how things work.

Please allow me to clarify also in this forum how the review process at MDPI works and what is important to know because it might be unusual and therefore potentially raise concerns.

As a reviewer you have four options: a) accept, b) minor revision, c) major revision, d) reject.

What happens if you accept needs no further explanation. For the other options please read in the following what you need to know.

(1) If your recommendation is "minor revision" you won't get the paper back for another review. It's the academic editor who decides whether or not the revisions or responses made are satisfactory. I think that's perfectly fine if the revisions are minor.

(2) Only if you recommend "major revisions" the paper will be returned to you. So if you have bigger issues or concerns and want to get the paper back for another round (if it is not rejected) you should recommend "major revisions".

(3) Sometimes the paper will also be returned for a second round if you have recommended "reject". It depends on the academic editor’s decision on the paper (based on the other reviewers' recommendation and the authors responses).

(4) Usually there are only two rounds of revisions, sometimes three, but then a final decision will be made in any case.

How can I know? First, I it know from my personal experience as an author, reviewer, guest editor and editor of MDPI journals. But what’s more important is that everybody can read it in the guidelines for reviewers: https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers

I am certain that MDPI isn't predatory. I submitted 3 articles, 1 was accepted after a through and reliable review rounds, 2 were rejected and I accept the flaws mentioned by the reviewers. I have also reviewed some papers for different MDPI journals and never felt anything wrong.

I have only one issue, lot of conference invitations and journal emails that mention that 1 published paper in IJMS MDPI.

I do not think I will wilfully publish with MPDI now except on a joint collaborative effort in which other authors wished to. Their APC model is strange to me. When they began, they listed so many journals as free journals. You will see names like molecules, toxins as names of journals. If you ever mistakenly submit in those free journals, they will reject it. But if you go for those they put big APC, ohh they will gladly write you congratulation letters of acceptance. Secondly, when I started my journey for reviewing papers, I applied to them, they just bashed me and asked me to reapply in 5 years time. I think I was not fairly treated. Maybe they are selective when it comes to people from Africa. I later reviewed for other journals which prepared me for my editorial positions today. So MPDI did not help me grow. Why should I ever go there to publish.

Krzysztof Goniewicz congratulations on how you are piloting the affairs of your company. I have no further comments.

BW,

Egbuna

Reputable publishers strive to improve on the quality of articles they publish.

To me, MPDI is a work in progress, and so far, they are doing well. They are not perfect, but with an open review system, they are setting the pace for high-quality publishing. Al the times I have had interactions with MDPI, I have never had any reason to doubt the quality of their process. No matter how perfect a system is, it cannot be "one size fits all". That means someone will always find a fault.

It is ridiculous for anyone to claim that their application to be a reviewer was rejected because they are from Africa. What was his qualification at the time of application? Because the goal of every editor is to get the most qualified people to review for them, it is not unusual for applications to be rejected.

If you are qualified to review for a journal, there is no need to apply to be a reviewer, you will be contacted.

An APC policy that makes provision for authors from poor countries is needed, to encourage research output from the regions. This should not compromise the quality of accepted and published manuscripts.

There is no perfect publisher out there, they are all working on getting better.

There is still room for improvement, no need to over-flog this issue.

Krzysztof Goniewicz I am very sorry that you found my comment very unfair. But this is very strange. Are you the owner of MPDI? This is my personal opinion you know. It can be very very wrong. It is not my intention to hurt you or anyone. Sincerely I did not read those comments to see you.

Sometimes, when you send an article to a free journal of a publisher. It is a common thing to expect that they will tell you that your work did not fall within the scope of the journal and then they will refer you to a journal with APC of 1000/2000 euroes. Once you agree, it will fall within the scope. What is the way forward.

I thank God that now I receive a lot of invitation to review. Then my qualification was so bad. I am even declining these days because of so so much work. I just want to encourage the very vibrant young authors. Please identify good mentors. Go to good publishers. They will give you the opportunity to learn and grow.

This is an interesting discussion. In my opinion, the issue at stake came up considering the amount of money generated from the publishing process which now appears to be more like a business model.

In a similar discussion on this platform, I have previously suggested a more accurate rating system for journals. Categorizations should take into consideration the peculiarities of publishers and authors because it will be unfair not to carry everyone along when there is an imbalance in terms of available technology for research.

Only when the quality is ascertained below standards can we talk about penalties such as rejection of articles citing such journals.

We must not forget that the publishing process has a huge cost implication.

Quality should be the focus irrespective of journal categorization.

I joined the editorial board of two MDPI journals in good faith. Soon I started to be concerned due to the following reasons:

1) The Editors-In-Chief have no role on editorial decisions regarding the suitability of papers for publication, they seem decorative figures (supposedly involved in the strategic decisions, special issues approval, etc.).

2) The submitted manuscripts are assigned to members of the editorial board (which can be current members, section editors or appointed editors for special issues). The process is not under strict control by a section editor with full authority, rather the “in-house editors”, i. e. people hired by MDPI decide on assigning the manuscripts to editors and ALSO on inviting the reviewers.

3) As an editor, you may face unusual situations. You may be invited to decide on a manuscript that has three-four reviewers already assigned and sometimes another editor (i.e. you have not recruited the reviewers, you do not know them!). In many instances, 1-2 of the reviews are too poor and useless. You do not have tools to interact in the journal managing system with the other editor/s, neither with the reviewers. This is always done by in-house editors. Some of the correspondence regarding papers is sent via email (outside the system), this impedes 100% traceability on all issues related to the manuscript (lack of transparency). This parallel correspondence is handled by the in-house editors.

4) Only if you complain, you are given the opportunity to invite your own reviewers.

5) You may reject a manuscript as the editor, and then the rejection decision with the comments provided by the reviewers is not submitted to all the reviewers (lack of transparency). Why? Simply, an in-house editor may consider that the authors should be given a chance to reply to the comments made by the reviewers, overruling the decision made by the editor (!). An in-house editor may decide on involving another editorial member to overrule your decision. Then, the manuscript may appear with a new submission number and you may or not be involved in the decision of the “re-submitted” manuscript, which is no more than a revised version of the first submission.

6) A manuscript you have rejected may have been sent back to the authors to be resubmitted, despite that you have already made a final decision of rejection without any further consideration. In those cases, you do not get to know who is overruling your decision (an in-house editor or a special issue editor eager to get papers accepted, so he can get 2-3 papers free of charge: see below one of these offers). If you check with a section editor, he usually is not aware of what is going.

SEE HERE what a SPECIAL ISSUE Means in MDPI journals (this is an invitation email to lead one of such special issues):

“Dear Dr. xxxx,

Hope you are doing very well.

I would like to begin by thanking you for serving as the Editorial Board

Member in (a MDPI journal). Please know that your efforts are greatly appreciated.

As you might already be aware, one of the ways that IJERPH highlights

and promotes emerging areas of research within a field is through

publishing so-called “Special Issues”, which are dedicated collections

of articles that generally receive high visibility.

LIST OF ISSUES (removed, too long).

We also welcome you to recommend suitable scholars to us for these

topics, or to provide us with your feedback on the topics above and how

to make them more attractive.

Each Special Issue should be led by a single Lead Guest Editor and a

team of 1–3 Assistant Guest Editors (assembled by the Lead Guest

Editor). This ensures that the Special Issue team will have sufficient

capacity and expertise to handle all incoming submissions. We will

review these Assistant Guest editors to ensure they meet the journal's

editorial requirements. IJERPH encourages Lead Guest Editors to form

teams including editors from multiple institutions and locations, as

this diversity reduces conflicts of interest and helps the issue reach a

wider audience.

The main role of the Special Issue Editor team is to promote the Special

Issue and nominate/invite papers via their personal networks, to achieve

a publication target (e.g., 10 papers). Of course, should you decide to

accept our invitation, you will receive full support on the

administrative tasks from the journal’s Editorial Office, including

setting up the Special Issue website, arranging for promotional

material, inviting reviewers, collating reports, contacting authors, and

professional production before publication.

This would be an ideal venue for networking and communication with

scholars in the research community, as well as an opportunity for you to

be identified as an influential scholar within your discipline. The

relationships you develop will last beyond the publication of your

Special Issue, establishing a network for future collaboration. In

addition, we provide a quota of five free papers for the Special Issue:

The Special Issue Editor team as a whole is allowed to publish three

free papers maximum, and you are welcome to invite top scholars to publish

the remaining free papers in your Special Issue. A printed book of the

Special Issue can be sent to you if more than 10 papers are selected for

publication by the end of the SI deadline. “

I hope this will facilitate your decisions whether it is worthy to be a member of MDPI editorial boards and submit or not to MDPI journals. I wish I have had this information earlier.

@ Chukwuebuka Egbuna

it is OK that reviewer is rejected - this only shows that publiher/journal is looking for quality

Maybe everyone who’s suggesting about “potentially predatory journals” are so good, and the rest of us so bad... In my experience, I received 3 rejections with 2-3 reviews each.. Maybe I wasnt so lucky and damn good as those who published after 20 days. Again, the problem of peer review is global and sooner or later, this bubble has to explode.. By the way, for me its the same “predatory” shit to publish after 20 days, than paying 60 to 100 dollars just for submitting a paper which will never be reviewed.

Dear Jose A Calbet ,

Thank you very much for sharing your experience and point of view. Yes, things work differently at MDPI, also for editors. But there is nothing wrong with that. As an editor and guest editor, I enjoy working together with professional in-house editors. They provide very useful services, I can focus on my main tasks. I always felt well respected in my decisions. That’s my experience. I have edited two special issues with Sustainability and I’m editing currently tow special issues with other MDPI journals. Furthermore, I joint an editorial board of one journal and I very satisfied so far. I have nothing to complain about.

Of course, everybody should read the guidelines for editors carefully before joining. But that’s no secret: https://www.mdpi.com/editors

You may also need to get rid of some mental model of how it should work!

Are you interested in meeting MDPI editors-in-chief and listen to their perspective on the editoral process at MDPI? Then watch this video for instance: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/2095

Thank you for sharing your experience, which is truly extensive, recognized and valuable. My experience, it has not been as negative as the one you relate. You really don't have the same play as if you're the Editor-in-Chief of a magazine. Within the Editorial, there are many magazines with different Chief Editors. The problem has many faces, there is the need to publish in order to advance yourself professionally; there is often an excessive delay in the response of the referees and in communicating the decision of whether an article is publishable or not, (after 8 and a half months, I was notified by a good magazine last week of the rejection of one of my articles); the frequency of rejection of articles in some journals is around 90%, - and not all of them because they are badly written or posed -; the articles that contribute something new are clearly the most valuable, but we must also make room - given that this is how it is set up - for those who carry out more modest, less innovative, less original research, as long as it is well done and written.

It is normal to give priority to reviewers for a rapid response, this may create some problem perhaps, but I have never received - either from this publisher - indications as to what the meaning of my response should be. Like all of us, sometimes, after our negative evaluation of an article, it is published as two others see it as appropriate. I believe that in science there are also different points of view.

I think it is important, as you point out, that we have to be careful, so that the use is not abused.

Thank you for sharing your experience that will make us more alert...

Hi there,

Probably you will agree that Frontiers is a high quality journal. For comparison purposes, here are the timings of my last publicattion in Frontiers:

31 July 2020 Published

13 Jul 2020 Article accepted for publication.

07 Jul 2020 Review of Review Editor 1 finalized.

05 Jul 2020 Review of Review Editor 2 finalized.

02 Jul 2020 Miquel Planas re-submitted manuscript.

29 Jun 2020 Interactive review forum activated.

09 Jun 2020 Corresponding Author Miquel Planas submitted manuscript.

As you will realize, there were some delays in acceptation and publication. Otherwise, the paper would have been published in less than one month.

The timings are rather similar to those on the example given by Erik G. Hansen for the MDPI journal.

My feeling is that everything dedends on the quality of the paper and the scientific level of the reviewers.

I have been invited to review 8 papers by MDPI journals. I rejected 6 (out of my scope) , I rejected 1 and I proposed the publication of another one with minor changes (a good paper). My review followed the same standards than others of my reviews in high quality journals.

By the way, I submitted another paper to BMC Ecology on the 30 April and I'm still awaiting for the review. It is clearly unacceptable.

As a scientific, what I wish is that the reviewing process be as fast as possible and MDPI accomplish with that.

Finally, the fees for publishing in many open access journals are aboslutely excessive and unnafordable for many scientists. MDPI fees are rather reasonable.

Have a great day!

I was recently approached by a predatory journal. I knew very little about them, but had read one very good Special Issue they published, with work by reputable researchers on an emerging topic. But when I found out how many issues per year they published and how much money they charged for publication fees,, I declined to give them my labor. I emailed the colleagues I had approached, and told them of my decision not to exploit them. They were supportive of my decision to abandon the Special Issue. But I still have respect for colleagues who published there, and their work was still good and useful.

Please let me invite you to contribute an answer to a question I just posted about a practice used by major Elsevier Journals. Thank you very much for your attention!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Time-loops_Do_major_Elsevier_Journals_manipulate_Impact_Factors_at_large_scale

Acceptation or rejection is determined based on the quality of work. Therefore, my decision is always based on the content of the reviewed manuscript but not on the journal that requests the review.

Diane Sicotte

journal title, please. Why you think it is predatory?

As a young reviewer, I agree with Krzysztof Goniewicz currently, the journal request submit the revision within 15 days. After accept work in the manuscript, It is a duty for the reviewer submit the revision before the deadline. I think that it is very good, because currently the rate to publish scientific papers is very fast (not enjoyable, of course). Furthermore, as was mentioned by my colleagues, MDPI gives discount voucher to pay partially your next paper in MDPI's journal. I think that this situation strengthen the enthusiasm of the reviewer to work fast, that result in a fast response. Additionally, the scientific journal use the speed of publication as marketing to get potential interest to submit a manuscript (I think that more than 80% of the scientific journal has a business model). Finally, there are several electronic source to identify a predatory journal. I think that the first step as author should be look the predatory journal list.

Finally, I would like comment that "predatory" term is relative. I have suffered conflict of interest of a top journal "FRONTEIRS OF........."On the other hand, some authors label to IntechOpen as predatory (I have never publish in this journal or editorial)and has the same peer-review process than other "non predatory" journals

It is a very interesting issue to discuss and follow.

Best wishes to everyone

The predatory journal is Sustainability. I think it is predatory because of the excessive number of articles and issues they publish. Excessive publications plus high publication charges suggest that the true purpose is to collect as much money as possible and not to advance science. (See Erik Hansen's post above regarding the number of articles published.)

Dear Diane Sicotte ,

I understand your feeling but disagree with your conclusion. Regarding your concerns:

-The number of papers. For example Plos ONE (a well-accepted open access journal) publish over 20000 papers every year

-The fee. Plos ONE charges for a research Article 1,695 USD (impact factor 2.740) while Sustainability charges 1800 CHF (which is about 1950 USD), impact factor 2.576.

Looking at the fact that the journal Sustainability:

-Has an impact factor (indexed in SCIE)

-Is Scopus indexed

-Is a member of DOAJ (often seen as the white list for open access journals)

The conclusion cannot be predatory. They have a concept that seems to ensure impressive growth while maintaining quality, see for thorough analysis of this publisher:

https://danbrockington.com/2020/07/23/mdpi-journals-2015-to-2019/

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/

Best regards.

PS. Keep in mind that Sustainability is 'booming' looking at Climate change, Global warming etc.

Dear all,

In my opinion the success of the these journals (as Sustainability) is due to the professional management of the publish process. So the management is fluently and quickly and the reviewers recieve a (litlle but at least one) recompense by their effort and work. This not ocurrs in other journals. This not means that these journals would be predator or that the papers not would be high-quality manuscripts. This only means that the journal is well managed. Sincerely, I think a manuscript not need be reviewed by a reviewer during six or seven month (at least) to provide a high-quality review. In the past I was reviewer for a journal considered "top" but really I don't repeat. I still waiting my certificate as reviewer (since three years). The management of the process was horrible and the reviewer service was the worst. I think the high number of publications of these new journals is the results of a good management and professional editorial office.

I agree with Ilan Kelman , the posed points in the original question have been rebutted by many people with solid evidences.

Kind regards

Desk-rejecting papers citing MDPI’s journals is worrying. A Paper should be judged on its contribution not the journal it was published in. Having said that, the length of time that author(s) spend making revisions after peer-review is concerning with MDPI journals (< 10 days). For me this raises suspicions on the quality of the review practice...

Joanne Jordan

MDPI allows author to chhose time for manuscript revision

Linas Balciauskas I am not suggesting that it is a requirement by MDPI. The author(s) of every MDPI paper I have read over the last year could only have spent a maximum of 9 days on revisions. Many colleagues have said they noticed the same. Of course these are observations, detailed stats would be required to unpack this further.

Dear Joanne Jordan ,

Yes, if you submit your paper to MDPI be aware that the deadlines for revisions are tight. But that’s no secret. Every author can read here what they have to expect: https://www.mdpi.com/authors

Minor revisions: five days

Major revision: 10 days

According to my experience as author, reviewer and editor these tight deadlines work very well. I’m often amazed how papers can improve very much in a short period of time. If you face these deadlines as an author for the first time, it may be very challenging. However, it’s feasible and I like it very much. Sure, also for revisions you can always ask for an extension.

my mistake

I'm sorry

Dear Rob Keller and Krzysztof Goniewicz

Thank you for correcting me.

Best regards.

Some of the MDPI journals are good, though.

MDPI good publisher

Some of the MDPI journals are high-ranked.

Please see https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/2041

Dear Erik, I cannot agree more with you. I know this is a predatory journal and many of my colleagues in Wageningen decided already not to edit/review/publish in their journals. Even if they are high ranked, ridiculous situations like the one you described (and I have my own examples as well) must convince us as scientists not to submit anything to this journal. There are plenty of good and high quality alternatives, like Journal of Cleaner Production for instance.

Dear Vincent Blok ,

Interesting example you chose. The “journal of cleaner production” received this year an editorial expression of concern from Clarivate:

https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-JCR-Editorial-Expression-of-Concern-FINAL-SENT-1-2.pdf

Because 11.314 self-citations were found out of the total of 47493 citations. For now, nothing changes for this JCR journal but being subjected to such a flag means that this journal will be monitored closely for re-evaluation and may lose its Impact Factor in succeeding years or even be removed from indexing altogether.

In other words, no publisher (certainly not Elsevier) is perfect…everyone can come up with "ridiculous situations" experienced with a journal regardless of the publisher.

Labelling such a publisher as predatory is a couple of steps too far.

Dear Rob, Thank you for this information. I was not aware of the current status of JClP (I am in the editorial board and I will pick this up) but in any case , the point raised Erik is valid and confirms my own experiences with Sustainability. I cannot take a journal like this serious anymore, just like the editorial boards of the journals are not taken serious by the field. Thanks again for the great discussion to all

vincent

Dear Vincent Blok ,

I can't agree with you in any way. First, some facts about your Wageningen claims: In Sustainability alone, 52 papers were published in 2020 (until today) with authors from Wageningen University, compared to 36 in 2019. For all MDPI journals these numbers are 282 (2020) and 261 (2019). You can find the most recent publication of Wageningen University in Sustainability here: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7528

A good paper.

Furthermore, 9 respected researchers from Wageningen University are members of the Editorial Board of Sustainability.

Also I'm editing and reviewing for, and publishing with MDPI journals (not only with them) and I'm a member of an editorial board. I'm happy in all my roles and quite convinced of the publication model: efficient, unbiased, transparent and high-quality.

As to your recommendation: Journal of Cleaner Production is a good journal, no doubt. However the Journal and the publisher Elsevier are subjects of serious concerns about their publication practice. One is mentioned by Rob Keller . Another is the massive use of time-loops. The Journal of Cleaner Production publishes papers “final and fully citable” far in the future. 435 papers of the year 2021 are already published by today. (See https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/19167#tabs=2)

This practice is suspected to manipulate IF and CiteScore metrics at a large scale. See also the discussion here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Time-loops_Do_major_Elsevier_Journals_manipulate_Impact_Factors_at_large_scale

I wrote the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Cleaner Production raising my concerns about this issue. No answer after two weeks. If you are a member of the editorial board, then, please be so kind and raise the issue of time-loops in the editorial board as well. Btw, Clarivate Analytics responded immediately. They are aware of this problem and its impacts and are going to change the basis of IF calculation based on the “early access” principle.

Erik G. Hansen But, if you ask me my view on this matter, I would say the retaliation said to be directed against MDPI in form of rejecting any submission that cites articles from MDPI is not a good way to go but what I may term as an unnecessary attack against many authors. I think it is high time the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) conducted more and rigorous investigation on MDPI again esp with their alleged threats against Sir Jeffery Beall.

Dear Vincent Blok ,

I have to admit that I wonder about the style of an editor of the Journal of Cleaner Production. You are downgrading openly a competing journal. You even “know this is a predatory journal”. You ask researchers not to submit anything to Sustainability, but instead to the Journal of Cleaner Production. Don’t get me wrong, but I think this tells a rather simply story.

May I ask you as a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Cleaner Production a question relevant to this discussion:

Do you support the desk-rejection of papers submitted to the Journal of Cleaner Production which cite Sustainability papers?

Looking forward to your answer!

Dear Jose A Calbet ,

I'm a member of the editorial board of Resources and I'm completely satisfied with my role. Yes, I agree, before you join any editorial board you should read the respective guidelines for editors. That holds for all journals. As for MDPI journals it all transparent: https://www.mdpi.com/editors

That's no secret, you only need to read (better before you join).

As far as you refer to certain cases, I can tell you from my experience that MDPI journals strictly follow the COPE guidelines. As an editor (or member of the editorial board) you are also advised to read the COPE guidelines for ethical editing:

https://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf

https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE_G_A4_SG_Ethical_Editing_May19_SCREEN_AW-website.pdf

When you visit COPE you also know how to handle a lot of cases in a responsible manner (often this is not the way you may intuitively think it should be).

See

Guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines

Flowcharts: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts

Cases: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Case

May I also ask you, Erik G. Hansen , as a member of the editorial board of Business Strategy and the Environment the question relevant to this discussion:

Do you support the desk-rejection of papers submitted to Business Strategy and the Environment which cite Sustainability papers?

Looking forward to your answer!

Volker Beckmann,

Excellent points, which do not change reality.

Dear Volker Beckmann ,

Maybe you are right that I shouldn't downgrade a competing journal if I am in an editorial board of a competing journal, so sorry about that, but I never experienced journals as competitors, nor our work as scientists. I just wanted to share with Erik and others interested in the topic about my own experiences with the journal and based on this, provide some colleagial support. This is the role of a social network like RG right?

Of course I cannot speak for 'all' Wageningen authors. I have published in the journal myself several articles in the past few years. And I can share recent debates in our teams and groups about the journal, and the decision several of my colleagues have made to avoid submissions to the journal. I can also share information about colleagues from other universities who approached me and asked me about my role in editorial boards of MDPI journals which are seen as predatory by the field. I can also share my decision to withdraw from these editorial boards because of the risks for reputation. This is the type of information Erik G. Hansen and other colleague can benefit from.

Finally, of course I would be against desk rejections 'because' a competing journal is cited. I am involved in several Q1 journals and I do have experience with desk rejections, but of course not for the reasons you suggest. And I cannot imagine that any editor of a serious journal will engage in this type of behaviour, already not because 'we' as scientists are fully in control of the review process of the journals I am involved in, and because we don't have any interest in such a competion (and this is different in case of sustainability, is my personal experience as editor and reviewer).

So, Volker, let's avoid competitive language and let's hope to help each other on our professional development. All the best, vincent

Dear Jose A Calbet ,

I remember that we seemingly live in different realities. Be that as it may.

If I'm right you are a member of the editorial board of the European Journal of Sport Science, Sport Sciences for Health, and The Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. Then let me also ask you the question of relevance:

Do you support the desk-rejection of papers submitted to European Journal of Sport Science, Sport Sciences for Health or The Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science which cite Sustainability, Sports or International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health papers?

Looking forward to your answer!

Dear Volker Beckmann ,

Where does the suggestion come from that all these journals are desk-rejecting papers because they cite papers published in Sustainability... You seem to suggest this is the case, but where is the evidence...?

I have the feeling that you become a bit too defensive in your responses Volker ;-)

Dear Vincent Blok ,

sorry, I didn't wanted to suggest that this is already the case. I apologize if this impression was created by the wording of my question.

The discussion in this forum is, among others, about the possible desk-rejection of papers citing Sustainability as a way to deal with “Potentially Predatory (Open Access) Journals and Publishers".

With my question, I wanted to hear your clear statement on this suggestion. You gave a clear statement, which I highly appreciate.

I don't have any evidence that such a policy is currently implemented in any journal. Only that such "scenarios" are discussed in this forum.

Dear Vincent Blok ,

If I didn’t express myself clearly, I don’t have any problems to correct it 😉

But, thank you very much for your answer in particular your clear rejection of any attempt to desk-reject papers simply because they cite Sustainability. l also would consider such a practice as a clear violation of the codes of conduct or ethical standards of our profession. I trust that you will raise your voice if this will ever be suggested in real life.

As to your assessments, please be aware that if you downgrade Sustainability (you “know this is a predatory journal”, you claim that it “must convince us as scientists not to submit anything to this journal”), you also downgrade me as an author, reviewer, guest-editor and member of an editorial board. I do all my tasks with great care and passion and I like to work together with MDPI journals because of good reasons. Yes, I even like their editorial model! I have made very good experiences. You may have made others, but there is no need to downgrade the activities of ten thousands of editors, reviewers and authors, just because MDPI does things differently.

The model where the Editor-in-Chief is in control of everything (and/or where the editorial board is small and very close to each other) is not without drawbacks. There are well documented cases where Editors-in-Chief have misused their power to the harm of the scientific community. See for instance:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/21/much-editorial-misconduct-goes-unreported/

https://publicationethics.org/annualreport/2005/4

From my own experiences I also know such cases.

No publication model is perfect!

Dear Volker Beckmann ,

I hope you understand that I didn't mean to downgrade the editors/reviewers/authors of sustainability by now. I just recognize and agree with Jose A Calbet and Erik G. Hansen and their indication of mallpractices is clear enough for me. Although it is a bit strange that you do not even refute these accusations but instead, hint at another not-existing practice in other journals in your responses ( namely that they reject papers if they cite sustainability), I still don't want to downgrade you or other senior editors and respect your choices.

At the same time, my advise for more junior/medior scientists is to carefully think about committing yourself to this publisher, as there are serious doubts about the quality of this publisher/journal in the field which may impact your chances in case of job or funding applications etc. Publications/editorships in these type of journal have no value at all, at least for some disciplines/subfields, and this is something people might want to consider. This is why I engaged in this discussion in first instance, just to make people aware of the risks involved.

All the best, vincent

Dear Vincent Blok ,

I have refuted the accusations of Erik G. Hansen and Jose A Calbet and others many times, just read my former posts. I just don't want to repeat it again and again. Sometimes I have the impression that we are running in circles with this discussion.

Therefore, I've asked the question of this forum straight to you and others who are members of editorial boards. I agree that I formulated my question in a way the could be misunderstood. I'm sorry for this. It should have read: Would you support ... if ... would decide to desk-reject...

I'm still keen to hear the opinions of Erik G. Hansen and Jose A Calbet as members of editorial boards.

I have read some comments above stating that MDPI pays for reviewers, that's why the reviewers respond quickly. AM I right?

Ok, let's end this discussion then. We have now sufficient material for our colleagues to make up their mind themselves. Happy to answer individual questions in this regard, but indeed maybe better to stop this as a public discussion and move forward to another and more inspiring topic. What about the normative dimension of the circular biobased economy? That is in my view a gap in the literature still that needs more attention.

all the best, vincent