List of predatory journals including all journals from MDPI publisher
The report linked above lists a number of journals published by MDPI as predatory, based on the authors' analysis of various factors such as editorial practices, peer review processes, and transparency. However, it is important to note that this report is published on a website that has been criticized in the past for its own questionable editorial practices and lack of transparency.
MDPI is a well-established publisher of open-access journals, with a good reputation in the scientific community. While concerns about predatory publishing practices are valid and should be taken seriously, it is important to approach such claims with caution and to evaluate the evidence carefully.
Ultimately, we as a researcher should carefully evaluate the quality and reputation of any journal we are considering submitting our work to, and should not rely solely on third-party reports or lists.
Dear Patricia Guarnieri The site of predatory reports looks to me a one-person operation without as indicated by Ajit Singh any legitimacy. I see numerous red flags:
-Contact info is missing essentially all info
-The image of the impressive office here is just uploaded from elsewhere see for example https://draperyindustries.com/customers/modern-conference-room-with-furniture-2/
-Their list(s) (https://predatoryreports.org/the-predatory-publishers and https://predatoryreports.org/the-predatory-journals ) is/are highly ‘inspired’ by the Beall’s lists (https://beallslist.net and related lists like the stand-alone journal list and the updated versions) without properly referring to it.
-They refer to the highly informative paper described here https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/predatory-publishing-in-scopus-scientific-database and although this paper strongly indicates that Frontiers is not predatory they include them in their predatory publishers list https://predatoryreports.org/the-predatory-publishers
-Their name misleadingly mimics the well-respected predatory reports by Cabell https://blog.cabells.com/2019/03/20/predatoryreport-criteria-v1-1/
-Furthermore, in their ‘news’ link https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher is a highly selective (read biased...) summary of (older) sources. For example, the last section is based on a study https://academic.oup.com/rev/article/30/3/405/6348133?login=false that in the meantime received an expression of concern https://academic.oup.com/rev/article/30/3/420/6360986
The first half is based on https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/ (Edit April 20th, 2021) which is overall still not that positive about MDPI but is way more nuanced and quite open and transparent about opposite (more positive) views (especially in the comment section) than the poor summary made by these people.
For a much better and highly informative analysis about MDPI I prefer: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/ and the use of the original Beall’s list.
PS. Personally I use the Beall’s list to get a first impression and the next step could be the use of the ‘whitelist’ approach. Meaning: is the journal indexed in Scopus, Clarivate’s SCIE/SSCI, PubMed, member of DOAJ etc.
Best regards.
Rob Keller Ajit Singh Thank you! I agree with your comments. I had the same impressions about the list, the methodology to elaborate the list is not transparent, and there is no information about the researchers responsible for elaborating the list. Besides that, many points highlighted in the concept of predatory journals on the website did not meet the current practices of MDPI publisher. Some journals of MDPI have Clarivate, Scopus and other impact factors and are listed as predatory. I verified comments from some researchers about MDPI and Frontiers concerning how publishers approach researchers to act as reviewers, guest editors or even authors. They consider the MDPI and even Frontiers approach as aggressive and insistent. However, in my opinion, it is just a different way to approach the researchers, including those that are not as well known or renowned.
For your knowledge, this is the official positioning of MDPI concerning the list: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5482
This is the analysis/comment of the MDPI related the paper Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)' from Oviedo-García
https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/2979
Despite these two official announcements from MDPI, several researchers have questioned the MDPI's evaluation and response deadlines, justifying that they are insufficient to conduct robust evaluations of papers. In addition, the number of special editions is also questioned. We must remain vigilant, demanding ethical and transparent practices from publishers.
ANECA removed its report as seen in: https://www.aneca.es/-/aneca-retira-el-informe-an%C3%A1lisis-bibliom%C3%A9trico-e-impacto-de-las-editoriales-open-access-en-espa%C3%B1a-2021-
However, it is available on other sites:
https://www.um.es/documents/793464/16843001/An%C3%A1lisis+bibliom%C3%A9trico+e+impacto+de+las+editoriasles+Open-Access+en+Espa%C3%B1a+2021.pdf/710d0e4d-2828-a58b-0a45-dc2b3844d4d0?t=1633593621616
From a personal point of view, I do not completely agree with the practices and procedures of MDPI journals.
- Badges
- Science topic