journal of clinical medicine cancelled my reviewer report:)
MDPI journal of clinical medicine said that my reviewer report is not good. it seems we are not allowed to reject papers for MDPI. we are only allowed to accept papers. its possible? ''Dear Dr. Uludag,
We are writing to inform you that the review report you provided for
jcm-4140317 has been removed from the review process. Unfortunately, we
decided that your report did not contain sufficient detail to constructively
contribute to the peer review process, and thus would not assist the authors in revising their manuscript or the Academic Editors in their decision to continue processing it.''
For future reference, the following webpage contains some general guidelines
regarding the preparation of review reports:
https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers#_bookmark11
We would like to thank you for your interest in reviewing for JCM. We hope
that we will be able to call on you to assist with JCM’s review process in
the future.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind regards,
Ms. Rinrada Klankajorn
Assistant Editor
MDPI Thailand Office
33 4 Rama IX Rd, The Ninth Towers Grand
Rama 9, Khwaeng Huai Khwang, Huai Khwang,
10310 Bangkok, Thailand
Tel. +662 005 2299
www.mdpi.com
Data Protection Notes
Disclaimer: The information and files contained in this message are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please
notify me and delete this message from your system. You may not copy this
message in its entirety or in part, or disclose its contents to anyone.''
I would like to report it as predatory activity. it should stay here.
We are writing to inform you that the review report you provided for
jcm-4140317 has been removed from the review process. Unfortunately, we
decided that your report did not contain sufficient detail to constructively
contribute to the peer review process, and thus would not assist the authors in revising their manuscript or the Academic Editors in their decision to continue processing it.''
For future reference, the following webpage contains some general guidelines
regarding the preparation of review reports:
https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers#_bookmark11
We would like to thank you for your interest in reviewing for JCM. We hope
that we will be able to call on you to assist with JCM’s review process in
the future.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind regards,
Ms. Rinrada Klankajorn
Assistant Editor
MDPI Thailand Office
33 4 Rama IX Rd, The Ninth Towers Grand
Rama 9, Khwaeng Huai Khwang, Huai Khwang,
10310 Bangkok, Thailand
Tel. +662 005 2299
www.mdpi.com
Data Protection Notes
Disclaimer: The information and files contained in this message are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please
notify me and delete this message from your system. You may not copy this
message in its entirety or in part, or disclose its contents to anyone.''
I would like to report it as predatory activity. it should stay here.
Comments
-
tatement: Concerns About Journal of Clinical Medicine and Predatory Publishing Indicators
While Journal of Clinical Medicine (JCM) is officially indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and holds a Journal Impact Factor, it has attracted significant criticism from parts of the academic community regarding its peer-review practices and editorial standards.
One public discussion thread about JCM documents a case in which a reviewer report was removed retrospectively on the grounds of “insufficient detail,” prompting criticism that the journal may not accept reviews that conflict with editorial preferences. The thread’s author labeled this behavior as predatory activity, asserting that the journal only accepts submissions favorable to authors and does not permit genuine critical peer review. While this is a single anecdotal account, it illustrates how certain editorial actions — such as invalidating reviewer reports after submission — can feed perceptions of non-transparent peer review and editorial arbitrariness.
Beyond individual complaints, broader discussions about MDPI (the publisher of JCM) have questioned aspects of its business model and quality control. Academic analysis has debated whether some MDPI journals exhibit characteristics commonly associated with predatory publishing, including rapid publication, high acceptance rates, large issue volumes, and perceived prioritization of volume over rigorous review.
Additionally, some independent commentary and watch-list style notices have cautioned researchers about submitting to JCM, citing its high annual publication volume and rapid editorial turnaround as potential indicators of insufficient peer-review rigor.
It is important to note that being controversial or criticized does not itself make a journal predatory — predatory journal definitions typically involve clear evidence of deception, lack of peer review, and intentional exploitation of authors. However, repeated reports of atypical editorial practices, such as post-hoc removal of reviewer reports and extreme emphasis on publishing speed over substantive evaluation, align with some red flags identified in broader scholarly discussions about predatory and low-quality publishing behavior.
For these reasons, some scholars and reviewers argue that Journal of Clinical Medicine — or at minimum certain editorial practices associated with it — should be viewed with caution and scrutinized for peer-review transparency and quality assurance, especially in contexts where rigorous evaluation is critical.