I periodically see posts regarding academic publisher @MDPIOpenAccess regarding aggressive marketing and predatory behavior. I am EiC of @Forests_MDPI , and have always been hesitant to reply publicly. But here is my take on the corner of MDPI in which I work: (1/7)

MDPI is a for-profit publisher, like most non-society journals. Their business model is to publish as many articles as rapidly as possible. This leads to several undesirable and irritating issues: over-reliance on guest-edited special issues and aggressive marketing; (2/7)

pressure on reviewers and authors for very rapid turnaround; filling up my colleagues' inboxes with correspondence re: the previous items. A positive effect of this model is that our time from submission-publication is among the fastest in the industry, which authors love. (3/7)

The journals are open access, which is the future of academic publishing, & removes many barriers. Yes, how access gets paid for is a problem, article processing fees are barrier to many. There is a fee discount program, & authors can get credits by reviewing. (4/7)

Most importantly, I have NEVER received pressure from MDPI regarding article decisions; I and the editorial board have complete freedom to make decisions. Can you find articles in the journal that aren't perfect, or perhaps even significantly flawed? Undoubtedly. (5/7)

Will you also find articles published by well-established leaders in the field, alongside very simple, sometimes confirmatory science from early-career researchers? Absolutely. (6/7)

In the end, I stay involved because I feel the good the journal accomplishes outweighs the bad. And I am constantly working with management to reduce the bad where I can. (7/7)