{{Shortcut|WP:MDPI}}
{{Infobox
| title = [[MDPI]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label1 = other names
| data1 = Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
| label2 = source type
| data2 = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3 = publisher
| data3 = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5 = website
| data5 =
| label6 = classification
| data6 = [[File:Achtung-orange.svg|20px|No consensus|link=]] No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply
}}
Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on [[Beall's List]] of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015, while applying pressure on Beall's employer. As of early 2024, about 5% of MDPI journals had been rejected by the [[Norwegian Scientific Index]], and another 5% are under review.[See https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778 (the publisher's summary page) and click on "Vis [+]" in "Assosierte tidsskrift" line to see the list and their ratings. As of February 2024, 13 (5.2%) of the 250 journals listed were rated X (under review) and 11 (4.4%) were rated 0 (unsuitable for scholarly publications, although they do not label them as predatory ''per se'').]]
== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 196#MDPI journals]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Vanity press or MEDRS-compliant source?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205#Other predatory journals]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#Reliability of a MDPI article]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#Is Religions a reliable source?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#MDPI journals]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#MDPI/Entropy Journal?]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:MDPI, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-nc" id="MDPI"
| {{anchor|MDPI}} [[MDPI]] (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:MDPI}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|nc}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 196#MDPI journals|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Vanity press or MEDRS-compliant source?|2]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205#Other predatory journals|3]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#Reliability of a MDPI article|4]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#Is Religions a reliable source?|5]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#MDPI journals|6]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#MDPI/Entropy Journal?|7]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021}}
| Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on [[Beall's List]] of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015, while applying pressure on Beall's employer. As of early 2024, about 5% of MDPI journals had been rejected by the [[Norwegian Scientific Index]], and another 5% are under review.[See https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778 (the publisher's summary page) and click on "Vis [+]" in "Assosierte tidsskrift" line to see the list and their ratings. As of February 2024, 13 (5.2%) of the 250 journals listed were rated X (under review) and 11 (4.4%) were rated 0 (unsuitable for scholarly publications, although they do not label them as predatory ''per se'').]]
| {{WP:RSPUSES|mdpi.com}}
|}