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