The MDPI Editorial Process

MDPI operates a rigorous and transparent peer review process that is handled by researchers and scholars and aims to maximize quality.

We believe that peer review should be efficient, rigorous, and fair for everyone involved.

For most MDPI journals, peer review is a single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief or another Academic Editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process; for making acceptance decisions; for obtaining the approval of external editors and topics for article collections such as Special Issues, Topics, and Topical Collections; and for appointing new Editorial Board Members.

A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below.

The MDPI editorial process. 

More about the MDPI Editorial Process

The following provides notes on each step.

Pre-Check

The pre-screening stage consists of two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check performed by an Academic Editor.

Immediately after submission, the journal’s Managing Editor will perform a technical pre-check to assess the following:

• The overall suitability of the manuscript to the journal/section/Special Issue/Topic/Topical Collection;
• The manuscript’s adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards;
• The manuscript’s standards of rigor to qualify for further review.

An Academic Editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, the Topic Editor in the case of Topic submissions, the Collection Editor in the case of Topical Collection submissions, and an Editorial Board Member in cases of a conflict of interest and regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief permits) will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. During the editorial pre-check phase, the Academic Editor will assess the suitability of the submission with respect to the scope of the journal and to the overall scientific soundness of the manuscript, including the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology. The Academic Editors can decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or continue with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers.

The Guest Editors of Special Issues, Topic Editors of Topics, and Collection Editors of Topical Collections are not able to make decisions regarding the submission of their own manuscripts to their Special Issue/Topics/Topical Collection, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. An Editorial Board Member will instead be responsible for the editorial decision-making. The Guest Editor/Topic Editor/Collection Editor will be unable to access the review process except in their role as author. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief or other Editorial Board Members are not able to participate in the review process of their manuscript except in their role as author.

Peer Review

From submission to final decision or publication, one dedicated MDPI staff member coordinates the peer review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, Academic Editors, and reviewers.

The peer review process is single-blind for most journals, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the identity of the author. Some MDPI journals operate double-blind peer review, where, in addition to the author not knowing the identity of the reviewer, the reviewer is also unaware of the author’s identity. Conference journals (https://www.mdpi.com/about/proceedings) operate using different peer review standards. The peer review process is handled by the conference committee, and the review method as well as the number of reports is based on the requirements of the conference organizers.

At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. The Academic Editor can suggest reviewers during the pre-check stage. Alternatively, MDPI editorial staff will suggest qualified Editorial Board Members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified via web searches for related articles.

Authors can recommend potential reviewers. MDPI staff ensure that there are no potential conflicts of interest and will not consider those who have any. During the initial submission of their manuscript, authors can also enter the names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer review of their manuscript. The Editorial Team will respect these requests as long as they do not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

If the journal has a reviewer board, these reviewers can apply to review a submitted manuscript should the authors agree to this option during submission.

The following criteria are applied to all reviewers:

• They should hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
• They should not come from the same institution as the authors;
• They should not have published an article with the authors in the last three years;
• They should hold a PhD or be an MD (applicable for medical journals);
• They should have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus or ORCID);
• They should hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

Reviewers who are accepted to review a manuscript are expected to fulfil the following criteria:

• They should have the expertise required to judge the quality of manuscripts;
• They should provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process;
• They must adhere to the standards of professionalism and ethics.

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are given 7–10 days to write their reviews via our online platform, SuSy. Extensions can be granted upon request.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within three days. Extensions can also be granted upon request.

To assist Academic Editors, MDPI staff handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor. Academic Editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time, and are able to discuss the manuscript’s review at any stage with MDPI staff.

Open Peer Review

MDPI journals allow authors to choose "open peer review". Choosing open peer review means that the review reports and authors’ responses to reviewers will be published alongside the manuscript. Publishing the reviewer reports and author responses together with the article provides greater transparency for readers as they can track and check the peer review process. The Open Peer Review model also encourages reviewers to provide high-quality comments as they will be made public if the article is accepted for publication.

To promote open communication and increase the robustness of the peer review process, we encourage reviewers to sign their reports so that their names appear on the review report (referred to as open identity). By signing the reports, reviewers can receive direct credit for their contribution to the peer review process and show their commitment to promoting open science. The default option is for reviewers to remain anonymous. If an article is rejected, no details will be published.

MDPI authors have embraced the Open Peer Review model, and we have seen an increase in the number of reports published since the launch of this initiative in 2014. Further information can be found on our blog.

Revision

In cases where only minor or major revisions are recommended, MDPI staff will request that the author revise the paper before referring to the Academic Editor. Where conflicting review reports are present, or where there are one or more recommendations for rejection, feedback from the Academic Editor is sought before a decision about revisions is communicated to the authors. Additional reviewers or further review reports may be requested by the Academic Editors at this stage.

Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version. By default, reviewers who request major revisions or recommend rejection will be sent the revised manuscript. All reviewers can access the most recent version of the manuscript via SuSy.

A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript are normally provided. If more rounds are required according to the reviewers, MDPI staff should request a decision from the Academic Editor.

For manuscripts that require extensive revisions, where the paper status is “Reject and Encourage Resubmission”, authors may choose to resubmit their manuscript to the same journal in their own time upon completion of comprehensive revisions. Revised manuscripts submitted to the same journal will be assigned a new manuscript ID and linked to the original submission in our submission system (SuSy). Following resubmission, the editorial process will continue as normal (https://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process). To ensure an efficient and effective peer review process, the same reviewers will be invited to review the resubmitted manuscript.

In the event that the journal’s editorial office is unable to maintain communication with the author during the manuscript review or production process, the journal reserves the right to withdraw the manuscript following a designated period of inactivity.

Editor Decision

Decisions to accept manuscripts can be made by the Academic Editor after peer review once at least two review reports have been received. Acceptance decisions are made by an Academic Editor (the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor/Topic Editor/Collection Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board Member). Guest Editors/Topic Editors/Collection Editors are not able to make decisions on their own papers; these will instead be assigned to a suitable Editorial Board Member. When making a decision, we expect the Academic Editor to check the following:

• The suitability of the selected reviewers;
• The adequacy of the reviewers’ comments and the authors’ response;
• The overall scientific quality of the paper.

The Academic Editor can make a decision from among the following options: accept in its current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, ask the author for a revision, or ask for an additional reviewer.

The Academic Editors should alert the Editorial Office to any potential conflicts of interest that may bias, or be perceived to bias, the decision-making process. More details about MDPI's conflicts of interest policy for Academic Editors can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/ethics#_bookmark22.

Academic Editors should not recommend excessive citations of their own work (self-citations), of work by close colleagues, of another author’s work (honorary citations), or of articles from the journal in which their manuscript was submitted in order to increase the citations of Academic Editors/authors/the journal. Academic Editors may provide references as needed, but they must clearly improve the quality of the manuscript under review. Any form of citation manipulation is considered a misconduct and a violation of publication ethics. Academic Editors are recommended to read the relevant descriptions in the Citation manipulation discussion document by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers make recommendations, and the Editors-in-Chief or Academic Editors are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision for the benefit of the authors and reviewers.

In some instances, an Academic Editor may support the acceptance of a manuscript despite a reviewer recommending that it is rejected. In this scenario, MDPI staff will seek a second independent opinion (double decision) from an Editorial Board Member or the Editor-in-Chief before communicating a final decision to the authors. The double decision, provided by an Editorial Board Member or the Editor-in-Chief, is the final decision.

Articles can only be accepted for publication by an Academic Editor. Employed MDPI staff will then inform the authors. MDPI staff never make decisions regarding paper acceptance.

MDPI staff and Editorial Board Members (including Editors-in-Chief) are not involved in the processing of their own academic work. Their submissions are assigned and revised by at least two independent reviewers. Decisions are made by other Editorial Board Members who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors.

MDPI is a signatory of the 2012 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). We aim to publish only manuscripts that are scientifically correct, and we do not artificially increase journal rejection rates, allowing the wider reader community to define the impact.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or editor's comments using an appeal form. Appeals can only be submitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision and should be submitted within three months from the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being considered further. The Managing Editor will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to a designated Editorial Board Member. The Academic Editor being consulted will be asked to provide an advisory recommendation regarding the manuscript and may recommend one of the following decisions: accept, send for further peer review, or uphold the original rejection decision. This decision will then be validated by the Editor-in-Chief. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.

Production

MDPI’s in-house teams perform production on all manuscripts, including language editing, copy editing, and conversion to XML. Language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff. In rare cases requiring extensive editing or formatting, we offer authors an English editing service for an additional fee (with the authors’ prior approval). The authors are also free to use other English editing services, or consult a native English-speaking colleague, with the latter being our preferred option.

Publication Ethics

MDPI is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and we follow its Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Our journals follow COPE’s procedures for dealing with potentially unethical behavior by authors, reviewers, or editors. All MDPI editorial staff are trained in how to detect and respond to ethical problems.

Details on ethical considerations for submitting papers can be found in the instructions for authors of journals (see here, for example). Please refer to our policy regarding Updating Published Papers.

Ethical issues raised by readers of the journal will be investigated by the editorial office following procedures recommended by COPE. Disputes on the validity of research reported in published papers can be settled by the Editorial Board. For disputes around authorship, data ownership, author misconduct, etc., where necessary, we will refer to external organizations such as a university ethics committee. Authors are asked to respond to any substantiated allegations made against them.

To manage authorship disputes, we follow COPE guidelines, particularly How to spot authorship problems. Typically, if all authors agree, the authorship can be updated via a Correction. If not, we require an authoritative statement from the authors' institution(s) about who qualifies for authorship.

Publishing Standards and Guidelines

MDPI follows the following guidelines and standards for its journals:

ICMJE: Medically-related MDPI journals follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The guidelines comprehensively cover all aspects of editing, from how the journal is managed to details about peer review and handling complaints. The majority of the recommendations are not specific to medical journals and are followed by all MDPI journals.

The CONSORT statement covers the reporting of randomized, controlled trials. We encourage authors to verify their work against the checklist and flow diagram and upload them with their submission.

TOP covers the standards of transparency and openness in the reporting of research. Our journals aim to be at level 1 or 2 for all aspects of TOP. Specific requirements vary between journals and can be requested from the editorial office.

FAIR Principles cover guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse of data.

PRISMA covers systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors are recommended to complete the checklist and flow diagram and include these with their submission.

ARRIVE contains guidelines for reporting in vivo experiments. Authors are recommended to verify their work against the checklist and include it with their submission.

iThenticate is an industry-standard software for plagiarism detection. It is typically used during the first screening of a manuscript/ during pre-check, but it can also be used at any stage of the peer review process, particularly before the acceptance of a manuscript for publication.

Proofig AI is an image integrity checking software that automatically identifies issues in scientific images. It is used to screen images in research articles and raw data during the pre-check, manuscript processing, or post-publication review stages.

Compliance with the standards and guidelines above will be taken into account during the final decision and any discrepancies should be clearly explained by the authors. We recommend that authors highlight relevant guidelines in their cover letter.

Editorial Independence

All articles published by MDPI are peer-reviewed and assessed by our independent Editorial Boards, and MDPI staff are not involved in decisions regarding the acceptance of manuscripts. When making a decision, we expect the Academic Editor to make it based solely upon the following:

• The suitability of the selected reviewers;
• The adequacy of the reviewers’ comments and authors’ response;
• The overall scientific quality of the paper.

In all of our journals and in every aspect of our operation, MDPI’s policies are informed by our aim to make scientific research as open and as widely and rapidly accessible as possible.