Commentary by Ondřej Machek: Gray area of publishing

In the world of science and higher education, where publications play a crucial role in professional growth, the quality of target journals is of fundamental importance. In many countries, such as the Czech Republic or Finland, public financial support for institutions is partially linked to publication activity.

In December 2024, Finland’s scientific publication evaluation system, known as Julkaisufoorumi (JUFO), announced that starting in 2025, 271 journals published by MDPI and Frontiers would be downgraded to level 0. What does this mean? JUFO serves as a quality filter that encourages researchers to publish in reputable journals and ranks academic journals on a scale from 0 to 3. Level 0 denotes journals with an ambiguous reputation—those whose quality cannot yet be reliably assessed or whose peer-review criteria are unclear. Publishing in level 0 journals results in reduced financial support for institutions from public funds, leading researchers to avoid these journals.

One of the main reasons for the downgrade of MDPI and Frontiers journals is suspicion regarding the lack of “rigor” in their peer-review processes. Although there is no direct evidence of this, the rapid publication of a large volume of articles raises questions about the thoroughness of the review process. While this is not necessarily problematic—some “mega-journals” like PLOS One also publish many articles—it does not create a good impression. If the review process is too fast (within weeks or a few months), it raises concerns. In high-quality journals, the publication process—from submission to final publication—can take years, depending on the number and complexity of review rounds. Additionally, MDPI was listed on Beall’s list of predatory journals in 2014–2015, which may have influenced its perception in the academic community and continues to have an impact today.

Another potential issue highlighted by JUFO is the business model based on article processing charges (APCs). MDPI and Frontiers operate on a model where authors pay substantial fees in exchange for open-access publication, allowing unrestricted public access to full-text articles. MDPI’s fees, which are publicly available, indicate that publishing in journals like Sustainability costs 2,400 Swiss francs (approximately 65,000 CZK), while Frontiers journals average around 2,270 USD (approximately 55,000 CZK). This is a considerable amount, especially given that top-tier journals often allow free publication. Although the APC model is not inherently problematic, it raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest between publication quality and quantity. After all, common sense suggests: why should an author pay to publish their research? Shouldn’t they instead be rewarded for enriching a journal with their rigorous and long-term research?

It is true that in some projects, such as the prestigious European Horizon 2020 program, authors are required to publish in open-access mode. However, MDPI and Frontiers are not necessarily the best choices, as leading journals also offer open-access options. For instance, SAGE Publishing, which includes many globally renowned journals such as Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, charges an average of 3,000–4,000 USD for open access. While this amount is higher than MDPI and Frontiers, the journal’s prestige likely justifies the cost.

MDPI journals are considered problematic not only in Finland but also at some institutions in the Czech Republic. The Prague University of Economics and Business has stated that publishing in MDPI will not be supported or rewarded. The Faculty of Social Sciences at Charles University discourages publication in MDPI, and Masaryk University has also pointed out potential systemic issues. Similarly, Palacký University in Olomouc has expressed concerns about MDPI and Frontiers. It is not unlikely that the Czech government’s Council for Research, Development, and Innovation will take similarly restrictive measures as JUFO. However, the current proposals for Methodology 2025+ do not yet reflect this stance in Module 2.

It is important to emphasize that MDPI and Frontiers do publish high-quality studies, and many of their articles meet high scientific standards. Therefore, the fairest approach would be for readers and evaluators to assess the quality of each individual article rather than dismissing an entire journal outright. However, moving forward, publishing in these outlets cannot be generally recommended.

For academics, especially early-career researchers, choosing where to publish can be challenging. JUFO’s decision serves as a reminder of the current trend toward prioritizing quality. Setting MDPI and Frontiers aside, journals that promise rapid publication may be attractive to some researchers, but it is crucial to assess whether this speed comes at the cost of rigorous peer review. In leading journals, this risk is virtually nonexistent. If we want to elevate the international reputation of Czech science, we should strive to publish our long-term research projects—into which we invest significant financial and intellectual resources—in the best possible journals. While multiple rejections can be discouraging, they provide valuable feedback from top experts in the field.

Author: Ondřej Machek

Ondřej Machek is a professor at the Department of Strategy at the Faculty of Business Administration, Prague University of Economics and Business. He previously served as the head of the Faculty’s Science and Research Center, where he also co-founded the Center for Family Businesses. Currently, he is the chairman of the Academic Senate of the Faculty of Business Administration. His research and teaching focus on business economics, strategy, and quantitative methods in management. He pays special attention to family business, social capital issues, interpersonal conflicts, and corporate innovation.