Behind the Open-Access Curtain: Are MDPI and Frontiers Truly Scientific?

As the landscape of academic publishing shifts toward open-access, concerns about the integrity of some publishers grow louder. My first post on Medium dives into the ongoing controversy surrounding MDPI and Frontiers — two of the most discussed names in the world of “predatory” publishing.

In academia, MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) and Frontiers are often at the center of ongoing debates regarding so-called “predatory” publishing practices. The discussion dates back to 2014 when MDPI was added to Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory open-access publishers. In 2015, he reiterated his stance, stating: “It is clear that MDPI views peer review as a mere formality that publishers are expected to endure.”

Frontiers, too, was flagged by Beall in 2015 as a potential predatory publisher. Although Beall’s list was later taken down and replaced by various alternative lists, skepticism surrounding these publishers has continued to persist across academic communities.

One of the most frequently voiced criticisms concerns the exceptionally rapid peer-review and publication timelines both publishers employ. For instance, MDPI has journals reporting an average decision time of just 17 days, a pace many editors argue is incompatible with rigorous and high-quality peer review. ⏳

Concrete concerns have also been raised about the quality of peer review practices. In the case of Frontiers, there have been claims that their internal manuscript system does not allow reviewers to outright reject a manuscript — effectively making rejection nearly impossible. ❌

Notably, in 2015, Frontiers dismissed the entire editorial boards of two of its medical journals following complaints of editorial interference and violations of publishing ethics. In response to the controversy, Nature Publishing Group severed ties with Frontiers. ❌❌

That same year, **Retraction Watch referred to Frontiers as a publisher known for “mismanaged and controversial retraction cases.” Reports also surfaced alleging that Frontiers accepted nearly 90% of submitted manuscripts**, and that some editors were dismissed for rejecting “too many papers,” further intensifying criticism. Over the past decade, accusations of predatory publishing have only intensified for both MDPI and Frontiers.

This article is the beginning of a broader series I plan to write on the issue of predatory publishing in academia. In the coming posts, I will examine additional publishers, analyze case studies of retracted articles, and explore how these practices impact early-career researchers, scientific credibility, and funding landscapes.

If you’re a researcher, student, or just someone passionate about academic integrity, stay tuned. 🚀

Your feedback, thoughts, and personal experiences are more than welcome in the comments.