MDPI INSIGHTS: The CEO’s Letter #32 - MDPI China and Thailand, China Science Daily, 1,000 Partnerships, R2R

Opening Thoughts

Reflections from China: Year-End-Celebrations and Open Access Publishing

In February, I had the pleasure of joining over a thousand colleagues from our Tongzhou and Haidian offices at their end-of-year annual celebration in Beijing.

Spending time with our teams in China is also a powerful reminder of the scale and complexity of MDPI as a global organization. Our colleagues in Beijing, Wuhan, and across the country play a significant role in our day-to-day operations and long-term development. I’m grateful for the hospitality, collaboration, and commitment shown by our managers and teams in China, alongside colleagues worldwide, who have helped steadily build MDPI, brick by brick, over the years.

Below are some data on Open Access (OA) publishing in China and our collaboration in this important research market.

Open Access Publishing in China

China has been the world’s leading country in research and review article publication volume since 2019, exceeding one million publications in 2025. Over the past five years, the gap between China and the second-ranked country, the United States, has continued to widen.

In 2025:

• 47% of China’s research output was published Open Access
• Of those OA publications, 76% were Gold Open Access (approximately 382,930 articles)
• The overall OA distribution remained stable compared with 2024, with Gold OA increasing by 1%

Over the past five years (2021–2025):

• China published 4,398,050 research and review articles
• Approximately 48% of this output was OA

According to Dimensions, when comparing the top 20 countries by publication volume (2021–2025):

• China ranks 1st worldwide in publication volume
• China ranks 9th in citation performance within this group (for comparison, the US ranks 2nd in publication volume and 10th in citation ranking)
• Average citations per article: 12.51

Among the top 10 universities globally by publication volume, six are Chinese institutions, alongside Harvard University (USA), the University of São Paulo (Brazil), the University of Toronto (Canada), and the University of Oxford (UK).

MDPI and China

China is an important and long-standing part of MDPI’s global publishing ecosystem:

• In 2025, MDPI was the largest fully Open Access publisher in China
• MDPI published 22% of China’s Gold Open Access output (82,133 papers)
• We received 290,999 submissions from China-affiliated authors and published 82,133 articles
• There are 8,500+ active Editorial Board Members based in China
• 64% (5,438) have an H-index above 26
• MDPI works with:
• 117 Editors-in-Chief
• 103 Section Editors-in-Chief
• 71 China-based institutions currently hold IOAP agreements with MDPI, seven of which rank among the top 10 Chinese institutions by publication volume

China's scale in research output means that the publishing platforms chosen by Chinese scholars will continue to influence the direction of scholarly publishing. At the same time, MDPI’s strength comes from its international collaboration, with colleagues, editors, reviewers, and authors working together across regions and disciplines.

Thank you to all our colleagues in China, and around the world, who support MDPI’s publishing activities across departments and help advance open access research every day.

Impactful Research

“Progress in open science is built through trust, dialogue, and relationships”

Behind the Scenes: A Conversation with China Science Daily

During my trip to Beijing, I also had the opportunity to visit China Science Daily and take part in an interview and broader exchange with their team in Beijing. Visits like this matter because progress in open science is built not only through platforms and infrastructure, but also through trust, dialogue, and relationships across research communities and regions.

China Science Daily: History Museum

As part of the visit, I was given a tour of their History Museum, which offers a thorough perspective on the evolution of China’s first science and technology newspaper, established in 1959. The exhibition highlights how the organization developed into a trusted institution connecting research with the public and policymakers. It was a helpful reminder that at the core of publishing is stewardship, credibility, and long-term public engagement with science.

An Open Exchange on Open Science

During the visit, I met with Dr. Zhao Yan, Editor-in-Chief of ScienceNet. We had an open and engaging conversation about MDPI’s role in Open Access, the evolution of open science globally, and the potential for more collaboration going forward. He especially appreciated the candid and personal nature of our exchange, noting that this kind of dialogue feels important in a landscape where trust and transparency matter.

Interview on Open Access

I also participated in an interview with Ms. Yan Jie, from the Online Media Center and Editor-in-Chief of ScienceNet, China Science Daily. Our discussion covered the growth of Open Access over the past 30 years, MDPI’s mission and values, academic integrity, collaboration with the Chinese research community, and MDPI’s own 30th anniversary milestone. It was a great opportunity to reflect on how open science has matured, and where shared responsibility across publishers, institutions, and researchers continues to matter most.

“Progress in open science is built by more than scale and infrastructure”

I’m sharing a few photos from the visit as a glimpse behind the scenes. The full interview will be published by China Science Daily in due course, and I look forward to sharing it when it is available.

More broadly, visits like this reinforce something I’ve always believed in: progress in open science is built not only through scale and infrastructure, but also through continued dialogue, mutual respect, collaboration, and a willingness to listen across regions and perspectives. That remains central to our work, especially as MDPI reflects on 30 years of publishing, built together.

Inside MDPI

Bangkok Visit: Growth, Partnership, and Local Impact

In February, I also had the opportunity to visit our Bangkok office for the second time in two years to support their local meetings and deliver a training session on how we present MDPI at a corporate level.

It’s easy to spend time with our colleagues in Thailand. From Editorial and Production to Conferences, Marketing, Design, and our Regional Journal Relations Specialist (RJRS), the team continues to grow in scale and professionalism. I’d also like to recognize our local management and admin teams, who have been steadily expanding our office and supporting more than 500 colleagues on the ground.

Academic Partnerships

During the visit, we met with the Engineering Department at King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL). Our discussion focused on the recent MDPI developments, Institutional Open Access Program (IOAP) opportunities, Author Publishing Workshops (APW), and the potential use of JAMS to support their institutional journal.

“MDPI is the third-largest OA publisher in Thailand”

We also shared insights into the growth of Open Access (OA) in Thailand and KMITL’s own publishing trends. These conversations matter because institutions are looking for sustainable ways to support their researchers. Our IOAP agreements are one simple example of how we can provide value in this area while maintaining accessibility for authors.

Thailand and MDPI: 2025 Snapshot

Our Bangkok office, officially launched in 2022, has been growing to support over 500 staff members while continuing to expand its engagement in scholar visits, workshops, and conference collaborations. As at 2025, Thailand submissions to MDPI have increased about 21% and publications by about 25%, maintaining a rejection rate close to the company average. MDPI is the third-largest OA publisher in Thailand, publishing 15% of all Gold OA output in 2025.

Representing MDPI Externally

During the visit, I delivered a training session on how we present MDPI at external events.

This session covered topics related to:

• Our aim and guiding principles
• High-level company milestones and Indexing facts and figures
• Industry partnerships and collaborations
• Market trends in OA and subscription publishing
• Country-specific publishing data and collaborations with MDPI
• Insights from our Voice of Community report

I find that while many colleagues are very familiar with the specific journal for which they have responsibility, fewer have visibility into the broader MDPI ecosystem and the company’s global positioning. These sessions help build alignment, confidence, and consistency in how we represent the company.

What stands out most is that MDPI’s growth is not abstract: it’s visible in the people, the partnerships, and the professionalism developing across our offices.

Coming Together for Science

1,000 Institutional Partners: A Milestone Built on Trust

This month, we reached an important milestone: more than 1,000 institutions worldwide are now part of MDPI’s Institutional Open Access Program (IOAP). On paper, that is a number. In practice, it represents trust.

This milestone symbolizes thousands of conversations with libraries and institutions. It stands for negotiations, renewals, consortium expansions, and, most importantly, relationships built over time. It reflects the work of colleagues across publishing, institutional partnerships, marketing, editorial, finance, and many other teams who contribute to making these agreements operational.

In 2025 alone, more than 61,300 research articles benefited from article processing charge (APC) discounts through IOAP agreements. Tens of thousands of authors were able to publish through a simplified and structured process. At the same time, institutional administrators gained clearer oversight and streamlined workflows.

Why IOAP Matters

When we launched IOAP, the objective was straightforward: to reduce barriers for researchers while supporting institutions in navigating the evolving OA landscape. Over the past decade, the research ecosystem has changed. Funder mandates, national policies, and Plan S–aligned requirements have accelerated the transition to OA.

Institutions need publishing partners who provide transparency, scalability, and operational efficiency. IOAP was designed to support that reality.

For colleagues who would like to better understand the program, this blog-post overview of MDPI’s IOAP provides additional context, including common questions around the transition to OA and how our institutional partnerships are structured.

“Institutions need publishing partners who provide transparency, scalability, and operational efficiency”

Recent Examples

Our agreements continue to evolve across regions:

• In Sweden, MDPI signed a national Open Access publishing agreement with 96 institutions, enabling affiliated researchers to publish without managing individual APC payments.
• In Spain, we extended our flat-fee agreement with Universidad Católica de Valencia, reinforcing institutional support for OA publishing.

These examples show that institutions seek structured, predictable models that support their researchers at scale.

Looking Ahead

Crossing the threshold of 1,000 partners tells us that institutions see MDPI not just as a publisher but as a reliable operational partner in advancing open science. This milestone is not a finish line. It is a reminder that the work continues.

Thank you to the entire IOAP team and to all colleagues who contributed to reaching this achievement.

P.S. You can read about this milestone across industry outlets, including STM Publishing News, ALPSP, Research Information, EurekAlert, Brightsurf, among others. You can also read about the coverage in Poland (e.g., media-room, bomega) Korea (newstap), and Romania (EduLike).

Closing Thoughts

Reflections from the Researcher to Reader Conference

During 24–25 February, I attended the 2026 Researcher to Reader Conference in London, UK. Leaders from across scholarly publishing, research infrastructure, libraries, and technology gathered to discuss AI and research integrity, peer review reform, metadata and infrastructure, community engagement, open research policy, and the evolving role of publishers in a rapidly shifting ecosystem.

The conversations were open and honest, and at times uncomfortable – exactly what we need at times. Below are a few reflections that stayed with me.

The Battle for Knowledge: What Becomes Accepted as ‘True’?

One recurring theme was not whether science evolves but whether our infrastructure is resilient enough to sustain trust at scale. Science does not promise certainty: it promises process. As publishing systems grow more complex and become more technologically mediated, the question is how intentionally we design, monitor, and strengthen that process.

Peer Review: Speed, Credentials, and Structural Loops

Researchers consistently call for faster peer review. At the same time, reviewer credentials are often tied to publication records. This creates a structural loop. Publishing history opens reviewing opportunities, reviewing strengthens credentials, and those without early access remain outside the cycle.

There is a need for us to reflect on how opportunity circulates within our systems: we should ask how we create more inclusive pathways for researchers globally to participate in peer review.

Community Engagement Workshop

One of the highlights of R2R was the workshop format, whereby small groups met repeatedly over two days and moved from ideas to tangible strategies.

I joined the Community Engagement workshop led by Lou Peck (CEO at The International Bunch) and Godwyns Onwuchekwa (Principal Consultant at Global Tapestry Consulting). We explored two deceptively simple questions: What is a community? and What does engagement truly mean?

“Engagement requires shared design and shared responsibility”

Too often, organizations equate communication with engagement. The framework discussed mapped a maturity spectrum – from enablement (broadcasting, informing and consulting) to true engagement (collaborating and co-creating).

It was a useful reminder of the fact that if we want trust and loyalty, engagement must go beyond announcements and surveys. It requires shared design and shared responsibility.

AI: Democratization or Digital Colonialism?

I especially enjoyed the thought-provoking presentation from Nikesh Gosalia (Chief Partnership Officer at Cactus Communications), which highlighted an uncomfortable reality:

AI is already reshaping how research is created, reviewed, discovered, and shared. Its potential is enormous. But its impact depends not only on capability, but on governance, design, and intentionality. Publishers, funders, and researchers all share responsibility in shaping how these systems evolve.

Ethicality in practice (Lightening Talk)

It was also great to have our colleague Dr Miloš Čučulović (Head of Technology Innovation at MDPI) present MDPI’s Ethicality platform during a lightning talk.

“Technology alone is not the answer”

Ethicality embeds AI-driven checks directly into the submission workflow, supporting editors proactively rather than reacting after publication. As we scale, tools like this help balance trust, efficiency, and research integrity.

This goes back into the underlying theme of the conference that technology alone is not the answer. However, technology embedded thoughtfully within clear governance frameworks can strengthen confidence in the editorial process.

Final thought

The question is no longer whether technology will transform research infrastructure: it is already doing so. The real question is what role each of us will play in shaping that transformation deliberately, with structural maturity, inclusive governance, and engagement that moves from informing to co-creating.

Science needs to evolve, responsibly. And that responsibility extends not only to what we publish, but also to how the systems behind publication are designed. Some important topics to continue reflecting on both internally and within our broader community.