Dear Christophe,

let me start by saying that I do not have the time to address all the issues 
you raised. I do not like Religions’ (and, in general, MDPI’s) aggressive 
publication strategy and other aspects of their modus operandi, but I have to 
say that my experience has been better than what one might expect, especially 
in terms of peer reviewing (see below). If you are interested, you might read 
my reaction to a critique moved to this journal and its special issues in 
another venue:

https://networks.h-net.org/group/announcements/20044592/policy-not-publicizing-calls-papers-possibly-predatory-journals#reply-20044598

As a co-editor (along with Francesco Bianchini) of the very first special issue 
in your list, I’m more than happy to take up your invitation to

 tell us a bit more about the(ir?) interest (?) of this way of publishing (or 
attracting contributors ) and why they have decided to use it (even if they 
could have been misinformed about these mercantile aspects at the time they 
applied, or were invited, to become Guest Editor of such Special Issues


While in the past I received several invitations to become a guest editor of 
one such special issues (the theme of which, oddly enough, was proposed by the 
journal to me, rather than the other way around), all of which I turned down, 
this time it was me who approached the journal. Being in between two projects, 
I wanted to have a deliverable out relatively quickly. I had money to be spent 
for OA publication, so I told myself, why not. The deal we got is that we paid 
for half of the articles, the other half being provided free of charge. The 
total cost was half, if not less, of what an OA volume at Brill would have 
costed.

Now, MDPI apparently publishes THOUSANDS of special issues every year, and 
judging by what I can see (and the peer review requests I receive), I do not 
need to tell you that the vast majority of these are garbage. But there are 
also many, probably countless, legitimate special issues edited by serious 
scholars, and with high-quality articles, and I hope you will not blame me of 
being immodest if I consider Francesco, myself, our contributors, and the 
finished product as falling into this category. The bottom line for me is that 
contents are more important than the venue.

I would now like to address a misconception re the APC etc. Ironically, the 
special issue I co-edited allowed at least 4 early career scholars to publish 
an OA article free of cost, something they might not have been able to do 
otherwise.

Running a publisher, like anything else, costs money. Who is going to pay for 
it? Traditional, non-natively OA journal charge subscription costs or 
pay-per-article fees. Many of them make a lot of money. Now, while the OA model 
might seem questionable, my question is, who pays for the subscription fee to 
make students and scholars able to access contents? Well, taxpayers, including 
me an you, and this multiplied not only by every country, but also by every 
institution (Universities, libraries, schools, etc.) with an active 
subscription; in other cases, it is literally the private individuals who pay, 
if institutional access is not available. Isn’t it more cost effective that one 
institution or project just pays for 7000 euros and the whole world can access 
the publications for free? I think it is. Universities could then save money to 
fund more research and positions (wishful thinking, I know).

FYI, the ERC non longer considers eligible costs APC for individual articles in 
non-natively OA journals (as well as printing costs!). This means that my 
project cannot cover the ca 3000 euros charged by the Journal of the Royal 
Asiatic Society, for example, but I can only pay for an entire special issue, 
which would then costs thousands of euros. (Strangely enough, I’ve rarely see 
anyone questioning these fees). Or, I can pay for an article in a natively OA 
journal, like Religions.

I know there are journals that do not charge for OA publication, like the very 
virtuous French BEFEO, Archipel etc. (although, technically, these do not meet 
most funding bodies’ requirements as they still observe a 1-year embargo 
period), but demand hugely exceeds the offer, and publication times are often 
biblical.

A final note about peer review. I was surprised by how meticulous the process 
is at Religions. Having edited at least three special issues, I can say that 
this was by far the most meticulous, and even inflexible, process. They are 
currently contacting a third reviewer as they received a negative review out of 
two. Francesco and I were completely locked out of the review process of two 
article because the journals’ general editors perceived a potential conflict of 
interest. We were always asked to provide names of reviewers, and many of those 
we could see on the interface seemed to be respectable scholars. These strikes 
me as nothing short of best practices.

Just my two cents,

Andrea


Le 5 févr. 2025 à 12:40, Christophe Vielle via INDOLOGY 
<[email protected]> a écrit :

Dear List,

I would like to draw your attention on the following issue. Having naively 
expressed my interest after being invited by colleagues to contribute to a 
collective volume on a topic sounding to me, I was surprised to discover this 
new (?) type of publication promoted by the controversial 
MDPI/Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI on "Finnish downgrading" and "proliferation 
of special issues"). The concerned journal is "Religions", and its current or 
planned "Special Issues" on Indological topics, for which there are invitations 
to submit with a submission deadline between 1 Feb and 31 Aug 2025, are no less 
than 9:

Beyond the “Spice Routes”: Indic and Sinitic Religions across the Asian 
Maritime Realm<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/9P1M8049VT>

Buddhist Meditation in Central 
Asia<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/236DSD0UI7>

Hindu Sacred Texts and Rituals in Sanskrit 
Literature<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/1O9I38H1S3>

Jainism and 
Narrative<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/0W9OR9E09H>

Old Texts, New Insights: Exploring Buddhist 
Manuscripts<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/V6HUT4QX32>

Thresholds of Reality: Exploring the In-Between in Indian 
Thought<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/21MBCCKZMA>

A Sociological Approach to the Study of the Sanskrit 
Purānas<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/B9136AO0GV>

Religion and Performing Arts in Contemporary 
India<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/0MQ1NB9G31>

The Encounter of Colonialism and Indian Religious 
Traditions<https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/67UHFH1W13>

The benefits of publishing in a special issue are extolled on the above pages — 
"All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review 
process" (led by the guest editors) and the published articles are in open 
access<https://www.mdpi.com/about/openaccess/> (for reading them).
However, what is less common in our area of studies, is the fact that "The 
Article Processing Charge (APC)<https://www.mdpi.com/about/apc/> for 
publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs)" (= ± € 1900 
 or $ 1950). Such a prohibitive cost  certainly constitutes a denial of access 
to publication for most of the scholars in our field, especially the young ones 
(unless their own institutes or research fundings are willing or able to pay as 
much for their publications). However, in the (guest editors/publisher 
combined) invitation email (which is in fact optional, since the invitation to 
submit a proposal of paper is in the same time made to anybody on the Special 
Issue page), it was added that "should you have any difficulties with the fee, 
please let us know; given your qualifications and reputation, the journal is 
able to waive the fee for your submission" ("However if you are able to obtain 
any funding to cover either a portion or the whole of the APC…, either from 
your institution or other sources, this will help to support the journal" — 
this APC is requested at the end of the publishing process). This difference in 
(financial) treatment based on criteria that are devoid of objectivity is 
disturbing. And more fundamentally, in the case of a journal article, why pay 
for being published... I am not convinced by either the model or the results of 
these "Special Issues" (inevitably lacking of coherence), which, if they are 
successful according to MDPI ("Normally, a successful Special Issue consists of 
10 or more papers, in addition to an editorial (optional) written by the Guest 
Editor(s)" https://www.mdpi.com/special_issues_guidelines — I wonder which 
issue of the above list will reach this goal) would mean much more expensive 
volumes (paid by the authors) than the collective ones provided from reputable 
traditional publishers (when the open access is paid by the scientific editors 
themselves, through institutional research funding previously got for their 
collaborative project).

Maybe the guest editors (who are apparently never among the paying 
contributors) of these special issues could tell us a bit more about the(ir?) 
interest (?) of this way of publishing (or attracting contributors ) and why 
they have decided to use it (even if they could have been misinformed about 
these mercantile aspects at the time they applied, or were invited, to become 
Guest Editor of such Special Issues, since nothing about the APC is found on 
the relevant MDPI pages : 
https://www.mdpi.com/journalproposal/sendproposalspecialissue/religions / 
https://www.mdpi.com/special_issues_guidelines
On the other hand, are the Editorial Boards of the journal "Religions", no less 
than 3 plethoric different ones, somewhere really involved in the editorial 
process? https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/editors — probably not, which 
removes all scientific credit from it).

With best wishes,

Christophe

–––––––––––––––––––
Christophe Vielle<https://uclouvain.be/en/directories/christophe.vielle>
Louvain-la-Neuve








_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

Reply via email to