MDPI was a predatory publisher, but some colleague told me that it was retrieved from predatory list. Is this correct?
Dear Hima Abdelkader ,
According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI
And I quote “MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in February 2014,[6] and removed in October 2015 following a successful appeal”. Here you can find that there have been other issues in the past as well.
However, there are some objective criteria to determine whether you are dealing with journals with good (or at least reasonable) scientific quality. Matters like inclusion in serious indexing such as Scopus, Clarivate ESCI/SCIE, PubMed, membership DOAJ etc. When it comes to MDPI, the facts are:
-201 (of their 250 journal titles) are a DOAJ member
-To date 71 of their titles are indexed in SCIE
-141 of their titles are indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science (SCIE, ESCI, SSCI)
-146 of their titles are indexed in Scopus
-66 of their titles are indexed in PubMed
Regardless of what some think about their practices (they ask peer reviewers for quick response), they continue to obtain more and more of their journals indexed in serious indexing services:
-In 2020 (again) more than ten new journal titles are included in Scopus database.
-In 2020 (again) more than fifteen new journal titles received their first impact factor.
Based on what I see in other discussions here on RG:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Im_gonna_ask_whether_publishing_in_MDPI_journals_is_good_or_more_specifically_how_is_publishing_in_International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences
I tend to say that it depends somewhat on which journal you talk about (a lot depends on the quality of the individual editorial boards and editors). I also think that certainly in the past (and for new titles) journals have to built up a solid database of good reviewers and as long as this is not fully developed one tend to use less targeted strategies (large scale mailing and so on) to find researchers to do the peer review.
All together this publisher cannot be that bad looking at to high number of good quality indexes they managed to obtain. Even stronger I think that MDPI, the Frontiers journals and the PLoS journals are nowadays well-established Open Access publishers.
Best regards.
PS. The Beall’s list (https://beallslist.net/) is far from flawless. See for discussions on this also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_reliable_is_the_Bealls_List_of_predatory_journals
https://www.researchgate.net/post/is_Bells_list_of_predatory_journals_accurate_to_determine_predatory_journals
https://www.researchgate.net/post/New_versions_of_Bealls_list_to_check_for_Predatory_Publishers
Method Predatory journals and publishers: a menace to science and s...
السلام عليكم
هي قاعدة بيانات للنشر تتبعها الكثير من المجلات
ابحث في ملف الوزارة مجلات صنف أ و ب
الصورة كمثال
و عندما تطلع على المجلات المفترسة لنفس السنة 2019
تتفاجئ بما في الصورة
Dear Hima Abdelkader ,
According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI
And I quote “MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in February 2014,[6] and removed in October 2015 following a successful appeal”. Here you can find that there have been other issues in the past as well.
However, there are some objective criteria to determine whether you are dealing with journals with good (or at least reasonable) scientific quality. Matters like inclusion in serious indexing such as Scopus, Clarivate ESCI/SCIE, PubMed, membership DOAJ etc. When it comes to MDPI, the facts are:
-201 (of their 250 journal titles) are a DOAJ member
-To date 71 of their titles are indexed in SCIE
-141 of their titles are indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science (SCIE, ESCI, SSCI)
-146 of their titles are indexed in Scopus
-66 of their titles are indexed in PubMed
Regardless of what some think about their practices (they ask peer reviewers for quick response), they continue to obtain more and more of their journals indexed in serious indexing services:
-In 2020 (again) more than ten new journal titles are included in Scopus database.
-In 2020 (again) more than fifteen new journal titles received their first impact factor.
Based on what I see in other discussions here on RG:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Im_gonna_ask_whether_publishing_in_MDPI_journals_is_good_or_more_specifically_how_is_publishing_in_International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences
I tend to say that it depends somewhat on which journal you talk about (a lot depends on the quality of the individual editorial boards and editors). I also think that certainly in the past (and for new titles) journals have to built up a solid database of good reviewers and as long as this is not fully developed one tend to use less targeted strategies (large scale mailing and so on) to find researchers to do the peer review.
All together this publisher cannot be that bad looking at to high number of good quality indexes they managed to obtain. Even stronger I think that MDPI, the Frontiers journals and the PLoS journals are nowadays well-established Open Access publishers.
Best regards.
PS. The Beall’s list (https://beallslist.net/) is far from flawless. See for discussions on this also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_reliable_is_the_Bealls_List_of_predatory_journals
https://www.researchgate.net/post/is_Bells_list_of_predatory_journals_accurate_to_determine_predatory_journals
https://www.researchgate.net/post/New_versions_of_Bealls_list_to_check_for_Predatory_Publishers
Method Predatory journals and publishers: a menace to science and s...
لا ينصح بهذا الناشر .. ابتعد عنه اخي هيمة .. قرأت عنه الكثير فهو مشتبه فيه وهمه المال فقط.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Im_gonna_ask_whether_publishing_in_MDPI_journals_is_good_or_more_specifically_how_is_publishing_in_International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences?_ec=topicPostOverviewFollowedQuestions&_sg=_K3i6moQRroAwUBlJv1LLUyUqcjWegFnvO1ZnrByL6IPUbXcBU8fq26jB1cu30zjNChqTkXUt-pdMnye
Presentation How to Select a Trusted Journal, by: Asst. Prof. Dr. Emad K....
No, it is not. Some of their journals have quite high IF in Web of Science.
They asked me, a professor of Classics, to be on their editorial board for all their scientific journals, so sounds dodgy to me!
No they are not.. they are actually quite efficient compared to other open access journals
No, I wouldn't say it's a predatory publisher because: 1) journals in this publisher still undergo a normal peer-review procedure (although it might be much faster than other publishers), 2) many journals in this publisher have pretty high impact factors and cite scores, 3) the open-access processing fee is no higher (in most cases lower) than other journals from Springer and Elsevier, and 4) currently no one categorizes them as a predatory publisher I believe. You can debate the quality of the editing of some specific journals from MDPI, but overall I would say it's a legit publisher after all.
No. MDPI are more efficient publishers than the Old School smogs.
I do not think they are predatory. They have good IF, good articles, fast and efficient.
The best way to examine a journal quality is to check its indexing like WOS/Medline/Scopus. If any publisher has such indexing definitely it's best. And most of the MDPI journals are indexed here.
it is a predatory journal, who spams you always with emails, make every next person guest editor and has super duper poor formatting..
Let's just say they found an excellent slot by accepting so many papers, getting paid for that and always finding the journal for it. Their board of editors is simply huge, which makes me doubt when I compare with other top journals in my field who barely have 10 editors....That's why I always declined after being repeatedly sollicited. But, all in all, it is a nice outlet if you want to publish without headache.
if MPDI would be Chinese or other non-Western country and not having headquarter in Switzerland it would be considered predatory...
In general, accepts anything as long as you pay, and the editorial process is a joke... it has become a trick for "fast track to publication" and a useful method for universities that need to graduate their PhDs in about 3 years...
Algerian ministry of high education and scientific research provide every year listes of non acceptable journals : a list of predatory journals, and a list of predatory publishers. In previous lists MDPI publisher is considered predatory. In the 2020 list, MDPI publisher is not included in predatory list.
I don't think mdpi is a good publisher because the quality of papers that are published on this publisher is really bad (both format and English). I have read a paper on an SCIE journal of MDPI wrote that they used CNN architecture, however, the image of their architecture was a neural network. From my point of view, it is a big mistake. Therefore, I don't think that I can believe on these papers published on MDPI
My only suggestion is not to publish with them, if you are a serious scholar. I do not care predatory or not, but the quality of the papers there, just poo.....r.
I do not agree that MDPI is predatory.
Like any publisher it has good, well indexed journals and others that are not.
MDPI has many journals indexed in WOS or Scopus in Q1 or Q2.
The quick answer to the submission is a positive value. Journals that take months or years to respond make our research obsolete when they are published.
Currently almost all major publishers charge for open access.
My university has an agreement with MDPI and researchers have discounts for the charge to publish papers in open access.
In my opinion MDPI is not a predatory publisher since it contemplates the same peer review process than other highly reputed publishers. The most relevant criticism regards the huge number of articles published. Commonly, it is considered to derive from a flawed review process, but I do not agree with this argumentation. In fact, it simply derives from a specific policy that encourages the resubmission of rejected papers that have been judged to have some merits by the reviewers. This policy starts from the consideration that a common practice in the academic field is that many rejected manuscripts are rewritten by authors by taking into consideration the reviewers' comments. After that, the improved article is sent to a different journal. It us a very clever (and commercially highly profitable) policy: "why let the authors to change the publisher, if the article will be published somewhere, anyway ?" . So, I think this is the REAL point to be discussed.
Does someone know the percentage of rejections of MDPI? of course, it must vary from journal to journal. I would be more specifically interested in mechanics/materials journals. I must honestly say that I have seen some low level published papers but that does not make MDPI predatory. Simply not very discriminative....In short, I will stick to my old fashioned journals, risking frequent rejection but also acceptance in respected journals. Everyone makes his/her choice and this is the way it should be.
I don't know the percentage of rejections in the field you are interested to, but in my one it is in the range 30-40 %. However, I share your opinion that the quality of published papers is not always high. Probably, in many fields the best works are not preferentially sent to MDPI journals unless they are scored Q1.
Dear Hima Abdelkader,
Rob Keller's is the most relevant answer as it most accurately states the current status of MDPI - and that is what counts. The statement by other respondents above - that essays published in MDPI are poor/really bad - is baseless. The most important thing is to look at a journal's editorial board - this is a real determiner. I look for the PhD as a minimum and then a sound publishing record in the profiles of editorial board members, and I did find this in my case with MDPI. MDPI's reputation is improving and in my case, the peer review was rigorous. It is worth considering journals beyond the famed few - especially those less established journals that actually have a good editorial board - because with so many PhDs graduating these days, and many of them very talented, these well-established journals cannot possibly have room for all the best research out there in the handful of articles they publish each year.
MDPI is a bad publisher; according to my experiences, some articles have big mistakes in both the contains and grammar
In matter of fact:
1- main cons of "old fashioned" journals, is to find the ready-to serve as reviewer (here you may involve in a debate about every single part of the complete review process).
2- submission to publication period.
3- uncertainty and transparency about editors attitude.
4- .... and much more.
As a consequences, MDPI and similar open access publishers were emerged. but the question is, Does the open access emerged journals started to address these cons or add more. It make it worse..
Keep all side.. and if you want to have a quick impression, consider the "science behind figures" and charts.
In my opinion, MDPI, Frontiers and others similar publishers are filling a "market gap". Scientific literature grows in a higher proportion than number of journals do and each year is even harder to publish due to long reviewing periods. These publishers offer a quicker reviewing process than the conventional, with well positioned journals and with serious editorial boards in many of them. Undoubtedly they make business, the point is if for them the business is over the journal reputation... and there I think that sometimes yes, and others no, depending of the journal.
I get emails every now and then from MDPI where they ask me to write a paper for them and on top of that, pay about 2000 USD.
I don't know if MDPI is formally considered predatory, but in my opinion it should be. I can't take this editor seriously after all this soliciting.
My percentage of review for the last two years was 25% minor changes 60% major changes and 15% reject (only in one case where the major changes was sugested by me the article was pushed by other reviewers) ...
I am guest editing a Special Issue right now in one of their journals Sustainability.
Are they predatory? Not in my experience with them so far. One thing they are is aggressive about getting a quick turnaround from reviewers and guest editors.
So I suppose from an author perspective, that's a plus right?
From a reviewer and editor perspective I can understand how this would be off putting and annoying. Just say no if you can't do it.
Plus their impact factor seems to be growing quickly - not that that should be the underlining reason for publishing there - but very often it is.
It seems the Article Processing Charge tends to be an issue for people who decry the publisher but conversely, papers are open access as a trade off.
When it comes to special issues in MDPI journals, I guess guest editors who are meticulous and sticklers for attention to detail will ensure high standards. Same as in any other journal.
It was earlier but was removed by the Baell's list quickly based the publisher's appeal. Yes the publisher's APC are heavy. But, the review process is rigorous and there are quite some rejections too. It is no longer a predatory journal.
They certainly have a pro-active actitude to scientific publishing.
They demand fast responses from academic editors and reviewers, but they do follow the peer-review process quite to the letter.
They demand for extra revisions when encountering conflicting reviews and attend rebuttals from rejected submissions.
All this is positive for authors.
More of the journals are being indexed in traditional lists and some of them are in the Q1 range already.
MDPI isn't formally a predatory publisher but for me it is something like a Ponzi scheme, not serious publisher.
In my opinion, MDPI is not a predatory publisher, as articles are peer-reviewed meticulously, often by up to 4 independent reviewers. It is true that after the publication of the article in one of the magazine journals I get dozens of e-mails with invitations to special issues or invitations to the conference. However, bearing in mind the Impact Factor of some magazines and the short time from submitting an article to its publication, MDPI will grow even more forcefully.
MDPI peer-review process contains a potential conflict of interests.
It provides economic incentives (cheaper publishing @MDPI) to those reviewers who accept to review, especally if they do it in very short review times.
This assures a high number of publications, but risks to weaken reviews, by possibly lowering the attention to scientific quality.
This is honestly a very boring question, and it shows that many academics care more about the prestige of a publisher/journal than their own works. Many MDPI journals are indexed in WOS or Scopus, and these indices should be enough reason to see that MDPI is not predatory. They target a certain market, in which people would want to see faster peer reviews, and looking at the current state of the publishing industry, I am not surprised that this market exists. I am sometimes waiting for over a year to get reviews on my works, and therefore I appreciate a fast peer review. I am confident enough in the quality of my works, that I would like it to be published open access. One of my most cited paper is published in a MDPI journal, and it has been picked up by major international agencies such as the IPCC. The problem is, is that MDPI needs to make sure that these reviews are of sufficient quality, and that actual associate editors are in charge of finding/selecting/evaluating reviewers, instead of editorial staff. If they can improve this system, I have absolutely no problem with MDPI. I think we need to get rid off the idea, that publishing academic article is an elite undertaking. If it is scientifically solid and it can contribute to the literature, then who really cares where the work is published? Now most of the academic publishing industry is dominated by the big five publisher. As Hindawi has been recently acquired by Wiley, we only have a few major publishers left that are not belonging to the big five. Two of these publishers are MDPI and Frontiers, and both have been arbitrary labeled as "predatory" (by a librarian, who has openly stated to dislike open access journals (why?)) - yes both publishers have their problems, but give me one publisher with a completely clean track record. They don't exist. As academics I hope we can stop caring about "brands", the "eliteness" of our industry, and work towards a common goal or vision: doing science to make a better world. MDPI is just one of the publishers, and yes they charge money to publish (but you get to own your copyright, and which major open access publisher does not charge an APC?), yes they have had some issues (once again, should we dismiss the hundreds of thousands of authors, reviewers, and editors doing hard work to bring decent science on the "table"), and yes some of their peer review processes have to be improved (I appreciate a fast turn out, but not too fast please), but instead of asking ourselves (and doing the big five a favor), about who is predatory or not, let's discuss works based on its content, not on the brand it is supposed to belong to. This includes the big five, obviously the journals they publish are often excellent and in the hands of volunteering editors, reviewers, and editors. So I do not want to bash any publisher here, but come one, if MDPI will be branded as predatory and kicked out of the market, who will be next? (this is how commercial companies operate)
I will express my personal opinion which may be adopted by many other academeics, PhD students and scholars. Is the widespread of scientific research sustained under the condition of paying significantly high publication charges? Is this within the context of promoting scientific research? This as an answer and as a clue on the above question on specific publishers policy. Pls consider my thoughts.
Honestly, don't care. The article processing fee is too hefty to even consider submitting to their journals. Constant invitation to publish to their 'special issues' is not a good sign and reeks of predatory practice.
Your colleague is right, MDPI is not a predatory publisher these days.
Many of MDPI's journals are indexed in WOS or Scopus with excellent indexing results.
Indexation in Scopus means actually nothing these days. And personally, I have some doubts about WoS as well. Please check:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00239-0?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=0da5e44231-briefing-dy-20210209&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-0da5e44231-45762382
In my opinion, MDPI is borderline publisher, showing some features of predatory publishing house. Specially journals like Sustainability, Electronics and others.
Still, a majority of researchers believe that MDPI journals are predatory, as they observed that MDPI journals have a quick review process with high publishing fees and hiring untrained researchers to become part of the editorial board. They understand that their main aim is to just earn money. The big shit is that a majority of "Guest Editors" are promoting their faculty colleagues and students by putting their names in the papers they invited for the special issue. This should be stopped, this is not fair, how it can be? Totally against ethical standards, and the scientific community should take serious action against this.
Academics are entitled to their opinion, but:
- most research funding agencies actually demand publication in open access journals, and they provide specific funding for article processing fees,
- the article processing fees in open access journals depend on the journal. Top ranking journals have higher prices. Supply and Demand. Publishers in the market know their business,
- pro-active open access journals which are able to perform their services and achieve article publication in weeks rather than months should be the standard, rather than the exception,
- opening the editorial boards to young scholar from emerging institutions and countries has many more advantages than drawbacks,
- giving incentives to professional reviewers for performing their duties in due time and form should hardly come as a surprise in any trade,
- rating procedures are the same for all journals. They have the same lights and shades applied to one journal than to another.
MDPI has some very good and some very bad journals. And it can also vary greatly from one field to another.
People criticizing them for the price of their fees obviously did not notice that IEEE, Elseviers and Springer have more or less the exact same fees for their Open Access Journals.
The most controversial thing about MDPI as many of you guys have discussed is their "very fast" review process and their tendency to flood you with emails. There is pros and cons to it:
- Cons : This leads to a constant harassment by email in their quest for reviewers and sometimes they will stop at a lower quality reviewer if it makes things faster.
- Pros : In fields such as AI (my field), you sometimes wait 1 year or more for the first round of review to come back. There is absolutely no justification for it. It is unacceptable. And you are not even sure that after 1 year of waiting, the review will be any better or more serious than a quick MDPI review. Yes, MDPI process articles fast, and in some fields this is a good thing. Honnestly in most fields, unless you burry the paper under a pile of work, who needs 6 months to review a paper ?
- Pros : Like many editors, they give vouchers to their reviewer. This is done regardless of whether or not the paper is accepted. It seems to be fair to me for a review to be done with a deadline. And it also makes their journals open to a wider audience that couldn't otherwise pay for them.
- Cons : The very high number of special issues : Yes, they have hundreds of special issues every year, and again they will spam you with emails for it. But you should know that many of them don't make it or end up with very few to no papers. In the end, it is just natural selection between interesting special issues, and boring ones. The review process is nearly identical to the one of a regular paper.
- Pros : If you are invited to one of these special issues, you can get anywhere between 30% and 100% reduction of the publication fees. If you manage to have your paper accepted !
Ultimately, they are no worst than the other editors in my opinion. I have had horror stories with reviewers with MDPI and outside of MDPI, and I can't really say which were worst. MDPI is relatively transparent with their acceptance rates, and it doesn't seem to be any worst or better than other editors either ...
Like with any journal or editor, check the quality of the journal, take a look at what's published in it, and make your decision. Being fast is not always a bad thing. And finally, ask people from your field what they think about the journal you are considering publishing in. If many say it is crap, MDPI or not, don't publish in it. If they say it's good/fine, go for it !
Best of luck with your papers !
I recently had a strange experience with one of the MDPI journals. It was a special issue and I was invited to contribute by the invited editor of the issue. We sent our manuscript and received an immediate rejection based on poor publication history of the first author! I was surprised and disappointed because of this most rediculous and subjective rejection criteria. When I informed the editor about this rejection, it turned out that the editor did not know anything about this and that it was the decision of a secretary of the editorial office. After a good and open scolding of the editor, they apoligized, and our paper was accepted for publishing after a normal review process.
Do I have anything good to say about them? Well, in my case, at least the editor that they invited was a very good one and immediately took action after I informed her, also the process after getting accepted for publishing was quite straightforward and fast, and finally I got a good deal of discount, but I do not think I will publish there again.
I have reviewed once for one of their journals, and after the 2nd review round, after which i still had some concerns, they didnt let me see the manuscript again and published it. Which is fine: The editor is free to decide that my concerns were not valid or that the authors have met all of them. But it was still weird. In my other experiences as a reviewer, the editor always waited for my final judgment. And i get invites to review or submit to special topics almost every week, which is a bit annyoing, since i am not qualified for most of the things they invite me to.
I had a weird experience as a reviewer of a MDPI journal. The manuscript was completed flawed and I recommended rejection in the first revision. To my surprise, some weeks after the manuscript returned after major revision. Then, I can see other two revisions. The first reviewer had also recommended rejection with considerations similar to mine. However, there was a third revision; this was a senseless revision, completely generic and recommending major revision based on arguments such as "the introduction should be improved"; "experimetal part needs more detailed description", etc. A type of revision that could fit any manuscript from any scientific field. At the end, the manuscript was rejected after new recommendations, but the editor was unable to provide a reasonable answer to my claims about this absurd type of revision.
The three above weird experiences just reiterate my point. The first author wasnt happy with the desk reject, but managed to convince the editor, and even got a great discount. Showing that MDPI isnt pure for the money (why would they desk reject it otherwise? And give a discount). The author wouldnt publish again (well rejects are never fun). The second author reviewed a paper but in the third round the editor had to decide. Which is normal procedure for most journals. Its unfortunate that they keep inviting them for irrelevant papers, something MDPI has to fix (but Id blame the pressure they put on the editorial assistants to find peer reviewers fast). The last author recommended a reject and eventually the paper got rejected. The editor had to take into account the third reviewer, but in the end rejected it nevertheless. I dont want to disregard the feeling the three authors have about the weirdness of the whole process, but, judging from reading it here, its fairly standard. In the end, editors decide upon a manuscript, reviewers fulfill an advisory role (so dont feel offended if the editor does not always take up your recommendation). Being rejected is just part of the game (dont blame the publisher, step up your game). And when you feel after the second round that you still have concerns about the manuscript, best to email the editor if it are major flaws you have spotted, or understand that eventually the editor has to make a choice. And yes you have some absurd reviews, again the publisher needs to find a way to handle this. So my advice to MDPI dont review too fast please and let editors filter the bad reviews.
All authors should be very very very careful before submitting papers to this journal. If a journal is not on the list of predatory journals, it does not mean that it is not a predatory one.
MDPI Sustainability journal is 100% predatory, there is no doubt. I won't submit my garbage papers to the MDPI Sustainability journal because my garbage papers worth more than their entire journal. Indeed, I won't review any paper for them too.
Dear All,
Be careful with this Sa Mm he/she is already exposed as being a fraud by not using his/her real identity. See for example: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-to-deal-with-Potentially-Predatory-Open-Access-Journals-and-Publishers-the-case-of-MDPIs-Sustainability-journal
According to: https://www.researchgate.net/community-guidelines and I quote: “Use your real identity ResearchGate is a professional network and we require our members to use their real identity, using their real names, real photos, and accurate information about themselves.” And “Stay respectful and acknowledge diversity People use ResearchGate to discuss their work and engage with researchers in their field…. Harassment, defamatory and derogatory comments, explicit comments and content, and hate speech will not be tolerated….”
I think we have a case here where this fake member is eligible for removal from this platform. I think there is no room for unsubstantiated rumours, accusations, and fabricated lies. The discussion here is already troubling enough while trying to stick to the facts.
Best regards.
Rob Keller
Dear all,
Please be careful of being traped by the MDPI Sustainability predatory journal support team. I provided tens of reasons to prove that MDPI Sustainability is a predatory journal but their support team is trying to change the words in a way to show me guilty. All types of unethical and unlawful practices have been done by the MDPI team and I have proof for each of them but the MDPI support team like Rob Keller is trying to hide them.
I shared my experience and it has nothing to do with my identity. I don't think sharing my experience needs to disclose my identity. Meanwhile, who can confirm that you are a real person?
By writing this, you proved that I was 100% right. You can write whatever you want because you are being supported by MDPI Sustainability.
As friendly advice, do not publish your work with MDPI Sustainability predatory journal. You won't get credit for that. Simple and easy to understand. That's all.
I don't want to be a part of the discussion with the MDPI Sustainability predatory journal team. So, from my side, the discussion is over and the readers should be wise enough to distinguish who is telling the truth.
Some of the journals of MDPI are reported at JCR and SCOPUS lists, and some of them are Q1. I do not think they list predatory journals.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction