As an academic, I am deeply concerned about the troubling trend to unjustly discredit reputable publishing houses. This not only undermines their research but also significantly hampers the dissemination of valuable findings that contribute to our collective knowledge. A case in point is the unjust labelling of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) as predatory by sceptics, including sources like predatoryreports.org. Such baseless accusations can have serious repercussions, stifling innovation and hindering the progress of vital research across various fields. I draw on my recent publication in the Social Science Journal (https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14040199) to challenge this notion and spark discussion.

Rejection of reject idea…but resubmission

Some journals frequently desk-reject papers or suggest different alternatives. In my experience with the Social Sciences Journal of MDPI, my research idea was initially rejected. However, they facilitated a resubmission process, providing valuable guidance from the academic editors. This experience contests the belief that MDPI operates as a predatory publisher.

Peer Reviews

If good peer reviews indicate a quality journal, then my involvement in the peer review process with MDPI Social Sciences and MDPI IJERH was not only laborious but also incredibly beneficial. My recent paper with MDPI Soc Sci was reviewed by experts who provided detailed explanations of their comments and edited over 45 aspects of the PDF version to enhance its readability and focus. What more could one ask for from a quality journal?

Academic Editors

My experience with the resubmission process and peer reviews would not have been possible without the facilitation of academic editors. My experience with academic editors of MDPI is top-notch. I did not, and will not, go wrong with the work I did with Prof. Cecilia Benoit (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cecilia-Benoit) and Dr. Andrea Mellor (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea-Mellor) in my recent publication, authorities in their areas of study who guided the process and also peer reviewed my work. MDPI Soc Sci will also continue to make inroads with academic editors such as Nigel Patton (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nigel_Parton) and Pam Alldred (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pam-Alldred), my former PhD supervisor who have initiated and guided the publishing of Special editions of the journal. Have you checked the academic portfolios of these individuals? Do you still think MDPI is predatory?

In conclusion, it's evident that academic publishing operates as a business, and within such ventures, there are instances of sabotage and inefficiencies targeting specific publishing houses. In light of this, I invite you to reflect on how it affects our ability to share high-quality research effectively. Thank you!