MDPI出了什么问题：它是掠夺者还是严肃的竞争者？
What is wrong with MDPI: Is it a predator or a serious competitor?
AI总结：
本文指出出版界二元划分导致难以界定MDPI等存在可疑做法的出版商，认为根本原因在于同行评审系统的问题，并基于作者多方编辑经验通过实例分析该问题及MDPI的应对方式。
摘要：
对掠夺性期刊的猎巫基于将出版界二元划分为合法期刊与掠夺性期刊。这导致难以给像MDPI这样存在可疑做法的出版商贴标签。然而，根本原因不在于出版商本身，而在于同行评审系统的问题。这些问题为营利性出版商创造了市场，动摇了保守研究者的认知及其对何为良好科学的信念。本文中，我们基于自身作为作者、审稿人、客座编辑、副主编和主编的经验，通过实例分析这些问题。我们讨论了MDPI是如何应对这些问题的。
英文摘要：
Hunt for predatory journals is based on binary division of the publishing world to legitime and predatory journals. This leads to difficulties in labeling publishers like MDPI with questionable practices. However, the root cause is not the publisher itself but the problems in the peer review system. These problems have created markets for the for-profit publishers shaking the understanding of conservative researchers and their belief about what is good science. In this paper, we analyze the problems via examples based on our own experience as author, reviewer, guest editor, associate editor, and editor-in-chief. We discuss how MDPI has addressed these problems.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
