Following this discussion, I decided to take @MDPIOpenAccess up on their offer to join the Editorial Board of the journal-in-development, Birds. Yes, there were doubts in my mind, but many of the highlighted issues could be levelled against many other journals. /thread https://twitter.com/thonoir/status/1290601098336772097

One thing that stuck in my mind was this piece by @Dani_Barrington @elshaylor & @BexSindall that described MDPI's policy on fee waivers for Special Issues, i.e. that only 'leading scholars' are eligible. HT @TheLabAndField https://wash.leeds.ac.uk/what-the-f-how-we-failed-to-publish-a-journal-special-issue-on-failures/

The first email from MDPI post-acceptance was indeed about guest editing a Special Issue. No big deal - it's clearly a part of their standard policy. It does mean apotential flood of Special Issues but is that an inherently bad thing?

Unfortunately, MDPI's policy re: fee waivers focussed on boosting 'leading scholars'. What's a 'leading scholar'? I queried this and we went around the houses, a bit, talking about APCs and submission quality. I kept asking for clarification as they never quite answered the Q.

The APC itself didn't make sense, either. One email suggested that authors weren't charged an APC in the first 1-3 years. It also suggested, promisingly, that MDPI would consider a different model re: fee waivers for my Special Issue.

Wanting to be sure that I had this right, I asked for a bit more clarity. It looks like I misinterpreted and APCs would be applied in the first 1-3 years. Or would this only count for the Special Issue and then for everyone but 'leading scholars'? So many questions.

This all seemed to be a bit contradictory and confusing, so I tried to spell out my concerns a bit more clearly. Their response was generic and unconvincing, but contained some text that suggested that I would have the authority to grant fee waivers based on merit.

Nope, I got that wrong, too. But their most recent email did, finally, clarify one thing - a 'leading scholar' has published >10 well-cited papers in the last three years(!!!). I strongly disagree with this model and let them know as much, while withdrawing from consideration.

The point of this thread isn't to drag @MDPIOpenAccess - I engaged with good intentions and was enthusiastic about working on the journal - but to further highlight a problematic publishing model. 'Leading scholars' don't need a leg-up but plenty of others do. Support _them_.