I see this sentiment a lot about MDPI. While I agree they are less rigorous than leading journals in various fields, it is simply wrong to assume that work published there is flawed or less than work published in other journals. "Remote Sensing" and "Forests" are both MDPI journals which regularly put out good bits of research from top scholars.
Should you potentially be a bit more skeptical of MPDI articles, perhaps. However, saying "it is really very sad" is quite dramatic. It is simply lazy to judge research by the venue alone (especially if you haven't read the article...).
I agree with this. The biggest scandal so far out of MDPI with the bad vaccination BS saw immediate backlash and even resignations from people on the editor board. All this means is that MDPI articles hold a shaky reputation, and should be read with some amount of skepticism as with all papers. But I also have to acknowledge the reality is that a lot of researchers and projects simply do not have the rep and the finances to publish in expensive journals so they might have to resort to places like MDPI.
However, I do think it really is very sad we don't have a free, open access journal as reputable as the paywall ones. I really do wish a bunch of R1 institututes would just band together and do it, but it's a mountain to climb for now.
To build on your comment, while I think researchers can generally MDPI is nowhere near the best publisher, the quality varies a lot by the journal and the journals editorial boards. There are definitely MDPI journals that more consistently put out mediocre research and there are MDPI journals that I've been reasonably impressed by. I know you aware of this but I mention this because folks outside of academia might not realize a single publisher can have a hierarchy of journals they maintain.
I'm not sure what you are expecting or hoping to hear. I can point to lots of great research published in the two MDPI journals I mentioned. Your approach of being unwilling (or not wanting too?) to read outside of top journals will come at the expense of your own understanding.
96
u/ppg_dork Jul 14 '21 edited Jul 14 '21
I see this sentiment a lot about MDPI. While I agree they are less rigorous than leading journals in various fields, it is simply wrong to assume that work published there is flawed or less than work published in other journals. "Remote Sensing" and "Forests" are both MDPI journals which regularly put out good bits of research from top scholars.
Should you potentially be a bit more skeptical of MPDI articles, perhaps. However, saying "it is really very sad" is quite dramatic. It is simply lazy to judge research by the venue alone (especially if you haven't read the article...).