Conclusions from OASPA Membership Committee Investigation into MDPI

It came to our attention last month that the status of MDPI as a genuine open access publisher has recently been questioned.  OASPA takes such concerns very seriously and adherence to the membership criteria ( is essential for all of our members and new applicants.

The OASPA Membership Committee has carried out a detailed investigation into the issues that were raised (

The review focussed on the following:

  • Controversy surrounding a paper published in the journal Life (
  • Controversy surrounding a paper published in the journal Nutrients (
  • Nobel Prize Winners listed on the website
  • The role of Editorial Board Members
  • The role of Dr. Lin within the company
  • The functions of the different office locations

Investigations have encompassed review of internal correspondence at MDPI, detailed information on the handling of peer-review, decision making and reviewer reports, plus external comments, blogs and websites.  Based on our findings we feel satisfied that MDPI continue to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria.

MDPI have been extremely cooperative throughout this process and have shared many documents and evidence of correspondence with the OASPA Membership Committee.  We are grateful for their openness during this period.


  1. says

    Why does this publisher continue to be on Beall’s list of predatory publishers? I am a co-author of a paper published by them (Hill HZ and Pitt JH Failure to Replicate: A sign of scientific misconduct? Publications 2014, 2, 71-82; doi:10.3390/publications2030071). In our interactions with them, they were entirely professional. This paper was part of a special edition and we paid nothing. It was rigorously reviewed 6 separate times. I think that Beall’s list is a valuable reference but listings seem to be decided by Beall alone and, in this case, I believe that he is in error.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *