Scholarlink

<p>The rapid growth of MDPI has sparked intense debate about its role in scientific publishing landscape. This study presents a data-driven analysis of citation patterns across 237 MDPI journals indexed in the 2023 Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR), totaling over 1.6 million citations. Using bibliometric and network analysis techniques, we examine self-citation rates and the flow of citations by quartile, discipline, and publisher. Our findings reveal that while many MDPI journals—particularly in the Natural and Medical Sciences—are well-integrated into global citation networks and receive substantial recognition from high-impact external sources, others rely heavily on self-citations and exhibit limited disciplinary reach. On average, 33% of citations were intra-publisher citations—including 10% self-citations—highlighting the internal citation density within MDPI’s journal network. This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion about editorial ethics, legitimacy, and research evaluation by offering citation-based evidence of MDPI and its journals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The MDPI journals in the scientific communication circuit: exploring their citation patterns

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月16日

查看全文
  • Natalia Márquez-Bustos,
  • María-Consuelo Zamora,
  • Alexandra Pomares-Quimbaya,
  • Orlando Gregorio-Chaviano

摘要

The rapid growth of MDPI has sparked intense debate about its role in scientific publishing landscape. This study presents a data-driven analysis of citation patterns across 237 MDPI journals indexed in the 2023 Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR), totaling over 1.6 million citations. Using bibliometric and network analysis techniques, we examine self-citation rates and the flow of citations by quartile, discipline, and publisher. Our findings reveal that while many MDPI journals—particularly in the Natural and Medical Sciences—are well-integrated into global citation networks and receive substantial recognition from high-impact external sources, others rely heavily on self-citations and exhibit limited disciplinary reach. On average, 33% of citations were intra-publisher citations—including 10% self-citations—highlighting the internal citation density within MDPI’s journal network. This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion about editorial ethics, legitimacy, and research evaluation by offering citation-based evidence of MDPI and its journals.