Honest question: What’s wrong with MDPI? I’ve published in one of them, and noted that they (MDPI) have been spamming for more ever since, but other than that I haven’t heard of any issue with them.
Beall also claimed that MDPI used email spam to solicit manuscripts
I can confirm - this is what I’ve been experiencing after publishing with them once.
In August 2018, 10 senior editors (including the editor-in-chief) of the journal Nutrients resigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief because of his high editorial standards and for resisting pressure to “accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance.”
Yep, this is really bad, and something I definitely should have known.
(Edit: In my defence, I was relatively inexperienced at the time, and was recommended to publish in a special issue there by a (very) senior researcher that I know well and have every reason to trust. They definitely should have known better, and I’ve since learned to not trust the judgement of your seniors, even when it seems reasonable at first sight to do so.)
MDPI even asked Jeffrey Beall, the author of Beall’s list of predatory publishers, to edit a Special Issue in a field that is not his own.
Yea, I’m never publishing with these guys again. I probably wouldn’t have anyway, because the email-spam has been so annoying, but now I definitely won’t.
For anyone interested in predatory publishing practices, the link is a pretty good and in-depth read.
If you are a researcher, you shouldn’t have to ask someone for information that is readily available and particularly for that which you should already have intimate knowledge of.
Multi-disciplinary = inexpert
Review process = payment please
some actual reputable journals and scientific bodies no longer use it due to previous 2 points
Being a researcher, I know that the most efficient way to get more knowledge about a claim can be to ask the person making the claim. Being a lemmy-user, I recognise the value of asking the question openly so that others can read the response. I really don’t understand why you would try to make that point (in a derogatory way nonetheless …) of course I could check this myself, that’s easy. I decided to ask because
a) You might have specific reasons for claiming what you did that could be different from, or more specific than, the myriad of reasons that could show up in a search.
b) I wanted to contribute here by opening for a pleasant conversation about publishing practice.
With that said: I’m kind of surprised these points would be applied to the publisher as a whole. The fact that the publisher is multi-disciplinary doesn’t in my eyes imply that the individual journals are “inexpert” (they can still be confined to a niche). The review process is also typically run by the individual journal, so I’m a bit surprised that a blanket description of “crappy review” is applied to a publisher as a whole.
There’s nothing to discuss. You are clearly biased due to the motivation to defend the publishing body for your research.
Expert scientific bodies all over the globe, including China , Europe , had or have strong criticisms of the MDPI and for very good reasons.
It’s a paper mill where for a fee you can get published in a quarter of the time and work. Yes, the individual journals are the source of the problem but that MDPI constantly includes their crap taints the lot.
I have plenty of grievances with publishing practices that it could be nice to both discuss with peers, and discuss online on a forum where people outside the science community can both learn about what’s going on in the community and come with input from outside.
You are clearly biased due to the motivation to defend the publishing body for your research.
I’ve literally published one article in an MDPI-journal, and have exactly zero motivation to defend that journal. My work stands on its own feet, regardless where it’s been published. I haven’t even defended the publisher or the journal in my comments, so I don’t see how you can conclude that I’m motivated to do so.
Expert scientific bodies all over the globe, including China , Europe , had or have strong criticisms of the MDPI and for very good reasons.
This is what I asked you to elaborate on. Not because I think you’re wrong or have any need to prove you wrong, but because I wanted to open for a discussion around publishing practice and bad journals/publishers.
You seem to have concluded a priori that I disagree with you, and then you’re attacking me based on that. I really can’t fathom why you would do that. This could have been a pleasant conversation that both myself and others reading these comments could learn and benefit from, but you decided to make it about attacking my integrity and qualifications as a researcher.
Here’s the study in Minerals. I’ll caution that it’s an MDPI journal, but it’s better than Earth.com’s content mill dogshit.
Honest question: What’s wrong with MDPI? I’ve published in one of them, and noted that they (MDPI) have been spamming for more ever since, but other than that I haven’t heard of any issue with them.
MDPI is classified as a predatory publisher.
https://www.predatoryjournals.org/news/is-mdpi-predatory
Thanks, I hadn’t caught that!
I can confirm - this is what I’ve been experiencing after publishing with them once.
Yep, this is really bad, and something I definitely should have known.
(Edit: In my defence, I was relatively inexperienced at the time, and was recommended to publish in a special issue there by a (very) senior researcher that I know well and have every reason to trust. They definitely should have known better, and I’ve since learned to not trust the judgement of your seniors, even when it seems reasonable at first sight to do so.)
Yea, I’m never publishing with these guys again. I probably wouldn’t have anyway, because the email-spam has been so annoying, but now I definitely won’t.
For anyone interested in predatory publishing practices, the link is a pretty good and in-depth read.
If you are a researcher, you shouldn’t have to ask someone for information that is readily available and particularly for that which you should already have intimate knowledge of.
Being a researcher, I know that the most efficient way to get more knowledge about a claim can be to ask the person making the claim. Being a lemmy-user, I recognise the value of asking the question openly so that others can read the response. I really don’t understand why you would try to make that point (in a derogatory way nonetheless …) of course I could check this myself, that’s easy. I decided to ask because
a) You might have specific reasons for claiming what you did that could be different from, or more specific than, the myriad of reasons that could show up in a search.
b) I wanted to contribute here by opening for a pleasant conversation about publishing practice.
With that said: I’m kind of surprised these points would be applied to the publisher as a whole. The fact that the publisher is multi-disciplinary doesn’t in my eyes imply that the individual journals are “inexpert” (they can still be confined to a niche). The review process is also typically run by the individual journal, so I’m a bit surprised that a blanket description of “crappy review” is applied to a publisher as a whole.
There’s nothing to discuss. You are clearly biased due to the motivation to defend the publishing body for your research.
Expert scientific bodies all over the globe, including China , Europe , had or have strong criticisms of the MDPI and for very good reasons.
It’s a paper mill where for a fee you can get published in a quarter of the time and work. Yes, the individual journals are the source of the problem but that MDPI constantly includes their crap taints the lot.
I have plenty of grievances with publishing practices that it could be nice to both discuss with peers, and discuss online on a forum where people outside the science community can both learn about what’s going on in the community and come with input from outside.
I’ve literally published one article in an MDPI-journal, and have exactly zero motivation to defend that journal. My work stands on its own feet, regardless where it’s been published. I haven’t even defended the publisher or the journal in my comments, so I don’t see how you can conclude that I’m motivated to do so.
This is what I asked you to elaborate on. Not because I think you’re wrong or have any need to prove you wrong, but because I wanted to open for a discussion around publishing practice and bad journals/publishers.
You seem to have concluded a priori that I disagree with you, and then you’re attacking me based on that. I really can’t fathom why you would do that. This could have been a pleasant conversation that both myself and others reading these comments could learn and benefit from, but you decided to make it about attacking my integrity and qualifications as a researcher.
deleted by creator
Yes, we should all avoid discussion with humans at all costs, and of course already know everything anyway.
Imagine not knowing something and asking a human for more information? Ew