MDPI, WSEAS, Hindawi, Frontiers, and Elsevier are all legitimate academic publishers and cannot be classified as predatory. A Comparative Analysis

a0f4abed-58e0-4615-b4ec-b6cc3cef228620250716083400416wseas:wseasmdt@crossref.orgMDT DepositDESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE2732-99842944-912X10.37394/232022https://wseas.com/journals/dcm/61020256102025510.37394/232022.2025.5https://wseas.com/journals/dcm/2025.phpMDPI, WSEAS, Hindawi, Frontiers, and Elsevier are all legitimate academic publishers and cannot be classified as predatory. A Comparative AnalysisAidaBuluceaDepartment of Electrical Engineering, University of Craiova, Craiova, ROMANIAPierreBorneEcole Centrale de Lille, BP 48, 59651 Villeneuve d'Ascq, FRANCEXiaodongZhuangQingdao University, Qingdao, CHINAIn this brief study, we attempt to compare five of the most reputable academic publishers: MDPI, WSEAS, Hindawi, Frontiers, and Elsevier. These publishers implement a peer review process and are not considered predatory. MDPI, WSEAS, Hindawi, Frontiers, and Elsevier are all legitimate academic publishers and cannot be classified as predatory. But which one stands out as the best? In this analysis, we will explore and compare their strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, we present a comparative analysis of MDPI, WSEAS, Hindawi, Frontiers, and Elsevier across multiple dimensions, including reputation, peer review process, indexing, impact factors, controversies, and general perception.7162025716202550575https://wseas.com/journals/dcm/2025/a10dcm-002(2025).pdf10.37394/232022.2025.5.5https://wseas.com/journals/dcm/2025/a10dcm-002(2025).pdfM. D. Fryer, “Academic Publishing and the Rise of MDPI: Open Access or Open Questions?,” *Learned Publishing*, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 521–530, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1002/leap.1371. WSEAS, “About WSEAS,” World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://wseas.com R. B. Nasso, “The Evolution and Reputational Recovery of Hindawi: A PostAcquisition Review,” *Scholarly Communications Report*, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 177–184, 2023. D. Pontille and J. Torny, “Scientific Publishing and the Rise of Frontiers Media,” *Science and Public Policy*, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 102–110, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1093/scipol/scac060. E. Fyfe, “Elsevier and the Politics of Academic Publishing,” *Journal of Scholarly Publishing*, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 83–98, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3138/jsp.51.2.01. 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511J. Beall, “Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research,” *Journal of Korean Medical Science*, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1511–1513, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511. P. Suber, *Open Access*, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. COPE, “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing,” Committee on Publication Ethics, 4th ed., 2022. [Online]. Available: https://publicationethics.org 10.1007/s11948-017-9955-6A. Memon, “Predatory Journals Spamming for Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers: What Should Researchers Do?,” *Science and Engineering Ethics*, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2197–2201, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00235-8. J. Tennant et al., “A Multi-disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review,” *F1000Research*, vol. 6, p. 1151, 2017, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.2.