Reviewing for Journals with Article Processing Charges

[Bookworm]

I got asked to review for an open access journal that uses article processing charges-- something I've never come across as a writer or a reviewer of work myself. The journals I typically review for are ones I'm intimately familiar with and feel like are worth my time-- any insight about MDPI's open access journals? https://www.mdpi.com/about/apc

They tout their ability to turn around articles quickly, and my review time frame is 10 days (which I could meet, but usually I get at least three weeks!). Worth my time to do, or skip? [In case it's relevant, I've already exceeded research expectations for tenure at my institution, so I'm not really worried about the time per se, but whether it is something I can list on my CV as legitimate service to profession.]

[secundem_artem]

From what I can tell, MDPI open access appear to be a cut or two below PLOS or most of the BMC publications.  I reviewed for them once, but have declined further reviews. 

It's weird - the more reputable open access groups seem to charge ~$2000 to publish.  MDPI is in that ballpark.  The ones I truly don't trust are more likely to charge $100 or less and have misspellings on their webpages.

I'd rate them as legitimate, if not necessarily first tier.

[Puget]

There is nothing inherently wrong with the open access model, you just want to make sure it's not a predatory journal-- e.g., check if it is a member of COPE: https://publicationethics.org/members
In practice, most of us get way more review requests than we can take on, so if quality seems low, I'd just decline.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I've been asked to review for MDPI journals a few times and always say no, mostly because the requests have come when was too busy with work or vacation to be bothered with such a short timeline (10 days seems standard). That said, I have also heard shady things about this publisher and the journals they publish aren't well known or respected in my field, so I'll probably continue to avoid them.

[research_prof]

OP, just read through what wikipedia says about MDPI. And then think about the fact that academia is all about ethics and reputation at the end of the day.

[Bookworm]

Thanks, everyone! It does appear that this journal is a member of COPE; the wikipedia article for MDPI was informative too. It seems like much of the controversy surrounds the science journals-- I'm in the humanities. I think a one-off review now is fine, and if I get inundated with requests for the future I'll probably decline. The article's on a book I'm familiar with, and should be pretty easy to review. I'm also in lull between waiting to hear back from my UP about my book contract, and prepping for online classes, so the timing is good to space out with someone else's work.

[Hibush]

From what I can tell, MDPI open access appear to be a cut or two below PLOS or most of the BMC publications.  I reviewed for them once, but have declined further reviews. 

It's weird - the more reputable open access groups seem to charge ~$2000 to publish.  MDPI is in that ballpark.  The ones I truly don't trust are more likely to charge $100 or less and have misspellings on their webpages.

I'd rate them as legitimate, if not necessarily first tier.

The sciences are in the late stage of a full conversion to open access, so APCs are how publishing gets funded. It is--or soon will be--the universal form for thousands of science journals. This holds for those from scientific societies as well as those from commercial publishers.

This move has brought our the opportunities in force. Review requests from startup journals are now autosorted into my junk mailbox because the email software realized that I wasn't even reading the request after seeing the subject and first line.

MDPI is on the bubble. As Secundem Artem said, in the ballpark of legitimacy. Maybe not on the field. Some journals are in the dugout. Some are in the bleachers. The Swiss address gives them an air of legitimacy (rectitude? what is the Swiss stereotype I'm looking for?), but one they have not yet earned.

I also don't review for them because I get enough requests from the journals I chose to publish in.

[Parasaurolophus]

This is somewhat off-topic, but if a journal is going to charge processing fees, it seems only right to me that a portion of those fees get paid to the referees, who do a significant chunk of the processing.

I don't work in a field where processing fees are normal (one good journal started charging 20$ five or ten years ago, but that's the only reputable one that does AFAIK), so I'd refuse to referee for a journal that did and didn't pay its referees. But obviously things would be different if I were in a field where it was normal. It just seems grossly exploitative to make money on the front and back ends while capitalizing on loads of free labour.

[Puget]

This is somewhat off-topic, but if a journal is going to charge processing fees, it seems only right to me that a portion of those fees get paid to the referees, who do a significant chunk of the processing.

I don't work in a field where processing fees are normal (one good journal started charging 20$ five or ten years ago, but that's the only reputable one that does AFAIK), so I'd refuse to referee for a journal that did and didn't pay its referees. But obviously things would be different if I were in a field where it was normal. It just seems grossly exploitative to make money on the front and back ends while capitalizing on loads of free labour.

Reputable open access journals don't make money off the back end-- that's what makes them open access. Journals have to make money (or at least break even) off either the front (author fees)  or back (subscription fees) end, so either way reviewers are donating labor to an enterprise that charges others for publishing-- I don't really see a meaningful difference between open access and traditional model publishing in this respect (reviewers don't get a share of subscription fees either).

No journals in my field pay reviewers. I think it's something worth thinking about, although there may be some accidental perverse incentives if you went to that system (e.g., incentivizing lots of low quality reviews from people who start treating it as a side gig instead of a service to the profession). I just figure that as someone who relies on others to peer review my papers, I have an obligation to do my fair share of reviewing in return.

[Parasaurolophus]

This is somewhat off-topic, but if a journal is going to charge processing fees, it seems only right to me that a portion of those fees get paid to the referees, who do a significant chunk of the processing.

I don't work in a field where processing fees are normal (one good journal started charging 20$ five or ten years ago, but that's the only reputable one that does AFAIK), so I'd refuse to referee for a journal that did and didn't pay its referees. But obviously things would be different if I were in a field where it was normal. It just seems grossly exploitative to make money on the front and back ends while capitalizing on loads of free labour.

Reputable open access journals don't make money off the back end-- that's what makes them open access. Journals have to make money (or at least break even) off either the front (author fees)  or back (subscription fees) end, so either way reviewers are donating labor to an enterprise that charges others for publishing-- I don't really see a meaningful difference between open access and traditional model publishing in this respect (reviewers don't get a share of subscription fees either).

No journals in my field pay reviewers. I think it's something worth thinking about, although there may be some accidental perverse incentives if you went to that system (e.g., incentivizing lots of low quality reviews from people who start treating it as a side gig instead of a service to the profession). I just figure that as someone who relies on others to peer review my papers, I have an obligation to do my fair share of reviewing in return.

Right: open access. For some reason I was totally forgetting about that. Thanks for setting me straight!

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

I will re-open this thread, since this is the only MDPI topic on the fora the search finds.
I have just accepted a review request for one of MDPI journals (normally, I autodecline them): the article looked to be way better than I normally see in their requests. Upon further investigation I found that it is a part of a special issue (with a guest editor), which already has several decent (and a couple not so decent) articles published.
So, there is a great deal variability not only among MDPI journals, but even among the different issues of the same Journal.

[Hibush]

I will re-open this thread, since this is the only MDPI topic on the fora the search finds.
I have just accepted a review request for one of MDPI journals (normally, I autodecline them): the article looked to be way better than I normally see in their requests. Upon further investigation I found that it is a part of a special issue (with a guest editor), which already has several decent (and a couple not so decent) articles published.
So, there is a great deal variability not only among MDPI journals, but even among the different issues of the same Journal.

There is some merit to reducing the unevenness of MDPI articles.

What would happen if an MDPI journal sent a really excellent paper to you for review, and your review said as much but added that it was not suitable for this journal but would be a much better fit to the premier traditional journal in the field?

[zyzzx]

I will re-open this thread, since this is the only MDPI topic on the fora the search finds.
I have just accepted a review request for one of MDPI journals (normally, I autodecline them): the article looked to be way better than I normally see in their requests. Upon further investigation I found that it is a part of a special issue (with a guest editor), which already has several decent (and a couple not so decent) articles published.
So, there is a great deal variability not only among MDPI journals, but even among the different issues of the same Journal.

The special issue thing seems to be their business model, at least in my STEM field. I regularly get solicitations to be a guest editor for a special issue with these journals. They suggest a subject and then you are supposed to recruit all the papers. It seems kind of flattering the first time, so I kind of see why people agree. But they get 100s of these going at a time, and then all those guest editors drum up submissions (plus the guest editors can submit papers for free), and they end up with a gazillion papers. The sheer number of papers, combined with the super short review time, makes me pretty skeptical about the whole thing. It's also not clear how reviewers are selected, as I regularly get asked by mdpi journals to review stuff way outside my area of expertise. These days reviewers are so overloaded that it can take a while to line them up, even for a reasonably prestigious journal, so going from submission to first decision in a few weeks, as they advertise, suggests that they are taking whatever reviewers they can get quickly.

But, of course if the guest editors are good and can solicit good papers, then you can have high quality pockets. I actually just now got an email advertising one of these special issues from someone who is quite good; I am very curious to see what kind of papers they end up with.

So, while they are reasonably legitimate, I think their practices are really not helpful for science - drumming up so many largely low quality or 'least publishable unit' papers just feeds the publication list inflation treadmill, while using a huge amount of free labor from editors and reviewers. At least the properly predatory journals don't take up so much reviewer time and overload the system.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

New installment of the MDPI series:
got to review another article (this one was closely related to one of my dissertation chapters/papers).

Based on other reviewer's comments I start to suspect MDPI uses technical? writers in lieu of actual peer reviewers. The manuscript in question uses tools worthy of a small undergrad group project to conclude things listed in the "Introduction to [field name]" textbook. However, other reviewer didn't pick any of it. Instead, they gave a list of really "editorial" comments.

[born_a_prof]

Requests from MDPI disgust me. I have stopped responding to them completely.
A typical request is "here is this manuscript which our stupid algo figured is 4% related to your expertise. Please review it and send back comments in 7 days". If you don't respond, there is a follow-up NEXT day say "Hey, we sent you that thing...you gonna respond or what" ?