It seems to me they will take it in the end. Predatory publisher. In general, i prefer to stay silent in discussing such sensitive themes, however, i believe i can say something from my own experience. In any case, in my discipline there are sufficient journals in the "mid range" that will eagerly consider good early career and precarious backgrounds papers that have a normal peer review process and where you don't have to pay to play. I appreciate if all university evaluation committee banned them what university of Malaya did on their sensor journal. Otherwise, how can you pretend it is of significance and merit to the audience? This is an archived version of the Beall's list - a list of potential predatory publishers created by a librarian Jeffrey Beall. The Free Dictionary. According to my knowledge most publishers stopped the practice of time-loops, except some major Elsevier journals. It was recommended by my supervisor. For MDPI, some of its journals are good while others seem to be like the Editor makes the final decision on a paper. Doesn't honor unsubscription requests (spammer). Yes, as from my experience a few manuscripts submitted to Marine Drugs and Molecules were rejected or withdrawn after negative feedback from >1 reviewer . MDPI is one of the largest free-to-read journal platforms, with scholarly articles that have been indexed in leading databases. I have published two papers and that was okay and quite fast reviews. Unlike other journals, MDPI "judges" the manuscripts ONLY upon their quality and nothing else. He encouraged me to keep offering to review for them because journals can improve if reviewers continue to turn in high quality reviews. MDPI journals are very fast, they provide well peer-reviewed reports perfectly, within 03-04 weeks and editors are cooperative. But, the answer was "[...] is an open access journal and fast editorial process is our feature advance. After several negative experiences, I no longer accept to do reviews for them. Impact factors for some of the journals may be higher than one would expect (based on new research articles) because of the many good review articles that arise in them. The sole criterion must be the importance of the findings and nothing else!! I have published two papers in the MDPI journals and reviewed one for applied science. A routine weekly task by now is the deletion of probably bogus conference invitations (as speaker, session chair etc). If one sends crappy papers, he/she risks to receive rejection regardless of the fact that an APC can be taken from him/her. All of the major problems pointed out in review went unaddressed. I am surprised at the description of Kay Smarsly since I have reviewed (more than 10 times, at least 4 different journals) and published (twice) with MDPI and they always gave me a week to review and no extra e-mails apart from starting and the day before the deadline. The posts do not necessarily represent MDPI’s views. However, it seems to me that with MDPI this requirement is rather declarative. MDPI launched as a repository for rare chemical samples and, from the start, sustainability was a main consideration. Here is the story. There are good and bad things about MDPI.