Dear Attila Lengyel ,

Indeed, MDPI is (still) subject to quite opposite opinions. Numerous discussions have been started here on RG, see for example:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_MDPI_still_a_predatory_publisher

See for thorough (and unbiased) 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/

I would like to limit myself to the facts, this journal “Plants” is:

-Member of DOAJ (often used as a ‘white list’ for open access journals)

-Scopus indexed, with a CiteScore of 1.8

-Having an official (Clarivate) impact factor of 2.762

-Indexed in PubMed

In other words, all possible indicators for quality judge this journal as legit and genuine. Could all these services (using all sorts of requirements to fulfil) be wrong? I don’t think so, therefor it could be a safe choice (though without discount or some kind of waiver the APC is substantial 1600 CHF).

Best regards.

PS. Ádám Lovas-Kiss do you really think that average subscription-based journals performing better? I think a lot of journals publish some questionable papers, at least in an open access journal you can judge for yourself since there are accessible to everyone interested.

I was invited too, but I declined after reading some of the articles.

Dear Attila Lengyel ,

Indeed, MDPI is (still) subject to quite opposite opinions. Numerous discussions have been started here on RG, see for example:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_MDPI_still_a_predatory_publisher

See for thorough (and unbiased) 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/

I would like to limit myself to the facts, this journal “Plants” is:

-Member of DOAJ (often used as a ‘white list’ for open access journals)

-Scopus indexed, with a CiteScore of 1.8

-Having an official (Clarivate) impact factor of 2.762

-Indexed in PubMed

In other words, all possible indicators for quality judge this journal as legit and genuine. Could all these services (using all sorts of requirements to fulfil) be wrong? I don’t think so, therefor it could be a safe choice (though without discount or some kind of waiver the APC is substantial 1600 CHF).

Best regards.

PS. Ádám Lovas-Kiss do you really think that average subscription-based journals performing better? I think a lot of journals publish some questionable papers, at least in an open access journal you can judge for yourself since there are accessible to everyone interested.

Interesting question. Following the discussion.

There are some articles in Plants of dubious quality...

Dear Attila Lengyel, I wouldn’t call it “serious”. As Rob Keller explained very well, establishing a gradient of "seriousness" among different editorials is tricky and hard, if not just plain inappropriate. Fortunately, in this globalized and “social network” Era we live in, we can be sure that whenever an editorial company makes an illegal move or mala praxis, we find out quickly. I think that all scientists should (must?) have some editorial experience at some point in their careers, and not always we can choose where we have it. This situation you are experiencing with MDPI is common to many of us (including different editorials), and I suggest you go ahead and have the experience (if you haven't done it yet) for a given short period, which you can always renew if you want to continue. I´m sure you won’t waste your time, but rather you´ll gain invaluable first-hand experience. Best regards, Ale

MDPI is a serious publisher in my field.

In my experience as associated Editor of Plants and reviewer in the field on Nemtology, my opinion is positive. In the edited and revised manuscripts I have managed, I always see a high standard of profesionality in our discipline.