OASPA

Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association

Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
Oaspa News
  • Home
  • About OASPA
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • OASPA’s Committees
    • OASPA’s Interest Groups
    • History
    • Founding Members
    • By Laws
    • OASPA Participant Agreement
  • Conference
    • Call for Panel Session Proposals for the 2023 OASPA Online Conference
    • 2023 Conference Committee
    • OASPA 2022 Conference Full Program
    • Support for OASPA conference contributors
    • Conference registration (once open)
  • Membership
    • Members
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Dues
    • Apply to Join
    • Membership Criteria
    • Code of Conduct
    • Membership Applications, Complaints and Investigations
    • Logo
  • Support OASPA
    • OASPA Current Supporters
  • OASPA Webinars
  • Blog
  • Statements and Reports
  • Resources
    • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
    • Open Access Publishing Resources
    • For Societies
    • Licensing FAQ
  • Contact
  • Follow OASPA on Twitter

Conclusions from OASPA Membership Committee Investigation into MDPI

April 11, 2014 by Claire Redhead

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 (https://oaspa.org/membership/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 (http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/02/18/chinese-publishner-mdpi-added-to-list-of-questionable-/).

The review focussed on the following:

  • Controversy surrounding a paper published in the journal Life (http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1)
  • Controversy surrounding a paper published in the journal Nutrients (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491)
  • 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.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: OASPA Members

Comments

  1. Helene Z Hill, PhD says

    January 24, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    Why does this publisher continue to be on Beall’s list of predatory ? 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.

    Reply
    • rory robertson former fattie says

      February 25, 2015 at 2:46 am

      Hi Helene,

      In my opinion, one reason why MDPI deserves to stay on Beall’s widely followed list of predatory is because it does not correct false information on the formal scientific record. There is no “Australian Paradox”, no “inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity, no matter what MDPI publishes without competent quality control.

      Why not try my Charles Perkins Centre quick quiz on competence and integrity in science? http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/quickquizresearch.pdf

      Here’s the latest on the University of Sydney’s formal investigation into its scientists’ “Australian Paradox” research: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RR-response-to-inquiry-report.pdf

      Reply
  2. Massimo Nespolo says

    August 23, 2018 at 11:08 am

    I have seen manuscripts of questionable or very poor quality showing up in MDPI journals shortly after been rejected by serious journals. I have been reviewer of one such manuscript, which was rejected. A couple of weeks later it has been published by MDPI, without any change with respect to the text that had been rejected. Some colleagues of mine expressed their astonishment seeing their own manuscript published online by MDPI ten days after submission – apparently without any review process.
    MDPI buys a sort of reputation by publishing special issues of which serious colleagues are entirely responsible. Parallel to these, regular issues continue to be published with the same, sloppy and commercial practices. The fact that something good coexists with rubbish makes difficult to put and maintain the publisher in a blacklist.

    Reply
  3. Franck Vazquez says

    August 31, 2018 at 12:34 pm

    Dear Professor Nespolo,

    MDPI’s peer-review process and academic editor oversight is rigourous and the same standardized editorial procedure is applied to all MDPI journals and all articles, whether published in a special or in a regular issue. For transparency, many review reports have been transferred automatically to Publons since 3 years for our 50 largest journals (https://publons.com/in/mdpi/ ). In addition, many of our journals are very highly rated on the QOAM platform (Quality Open Access Market ; http://www.qoam.eu/journals ).
    Claiming that MDPI publishes articles “apparently without any review process” is entirely incorrect and not supported by evidence.

    Regards,
    Regards,

    —
    Franck Vazquez, Ph.D
    Chief Executive Officer, MDPI
    St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
    Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
    http://www.mdpi.com
    —
    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7967-3798
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Franck_Vazquez

    Reply
  4. redtube says

    November 30, 2019 at 2:45 pm

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

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Archives

©2022 OASPA | All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License | Privacy Statement

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. Learn how to manage cookies. Our privacy policy can be found here.