Perhaps, one day i will write an article, where i will share my own experience with the peer review process. For 21 out of 27 journals covered in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) the Impact Factor increased compared to the previous year. MDPI is a fully open access publisher, that is, all their journals operate exclusively on the open access model. MDPI journals have generally not sought to become more exclusive as they have become popular. Unfortunately, my experiences as a reviewer for International Journal of Molecular Sciences were quite bad. I think this happens as most of the journals have limited space (number of printed pages) and they prefer to publish papers from recognized scientists rather than junior faculty, regardless of the article's quality. Probably beacause of the forementioned. I, for one, have reviewed for a journal with over 3 impact fact (i.e., social science discipline) and also reviewed for a journal that may be considered as a"low ranking one". Regardless, the paper was accepted by the editor. As physicians, researchers and teachers our core goals should be, and now creative commons by 4.0 has promoted all these ideals such that. But the quality of papers is certainly not. THE STATE OF THE ART and the directions of research in finance have advanced considerably in the past decade, both in terms of theoretical rigor and empirical methodology. The unfortunate fact is that, they are selling impact factor. That means I would not think of them to handle my own manuscripts as well, as they deserve a more rigorous review. I review for some the journals being published by MDPI including the one you have mentioned here. I published two and reviewed one article. They ignore the reviewer's comment who reject a paper which is lengthy of their point although technically not sound by reviewer. What does it mean if my submission to Elsevier has been Decision in Process from Day 1? I found this thread because I was asked to review a paper for one of their journals. Out of three total reviews, we returned two votes for “reject” and one for “major revisions”. CH-270.3.014.334-3, … All these review records are of quite low quality; the second review record is just unacceptable. In addition, i see you raise doubts about the quality of peer review in MDPI, because of the shorter deadline (only 10 days). Institut Supérieur d’Electronique de Paris. We (my collaborators and me) published an article in this journal earlier this year and we were quite satisfied with the peer reviewing and publishing process. [CDATA[// >