Pith. sign in

REVIEW

What is wrong with MDPI: Is it a predator or a serious competitor?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.08051 v1 pith:NSVFXXXN submitted 2024-11-05 cs.DL

classification cs.DL
keywords problemsmdpieditorjournalspredatorypublisherswhataddressed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Hunt for predatory journals is based on binary division of the publishing world to legitime and predatory journals. This leads to difficulties in labeling publishers like MDPI with questionable practices. However, the root cause is not the publisher itself but the problems in the peer review system. These problems have created markets for the for-profit publishers shaking the understanding of conservative researchers and their belief about what is good science. In this paper, we analyze the problems via examples based on our own experience as author, reviewer, guest editor, associate editor, and editor-in-chief. We discuss how MDPI has addressed these problems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools