====== Cancers (MDPI) — Critical Journal Review ======

=== 📊 Strengths and Features ===

  * **Impact and Visibility**  
    * 2024 Impact Factor ≈ **4.4** (Q2, rank 85/326 in Oncology).  
    * Scimago SJR: **1.462 (Q1)** | H-index: **157**.

  * **Scope and Coverage**  
    * Publishes broad oncology content: basic science, translational, clinical, reviews, and negative results.  
    * Open access and global visibility.

  * **Speed and Accessibility**  
    * Rapid editorial process and frequent publication schedule (semi-monthly).  
    * No backlog — accepted articles appear promptly online.

  * **Indexing and Recognition**  
    * Indexed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (SCI-E), EMBASE, CINAHL.  
    * Affiliated with societies such as IACR and STS.

=== 🔍 Critical Issues and Limitations ===

  * **Peer Review Rigor**  
    * Concerns about overly fast reviews and superficial peer evaluation.  
    * Review transparency questioned — sometimes only positive reviews made public.

  * **Special Issues Proliferation**  
    * High volume of special issues may reduce editorial control and consistency.  
    * Editorial invitations often automated or perceived as low-selectivity.

  * **Predatory Publisher Concerns**  
    * MDPI previously listed in Beall’s list; still controversial in some academic circles.  
    * Finland (2024) rated many MDPI journals as Level 0 (non-academic).

  * **Example of Errors**  
    * Documented cases of statistical errors and uncorrected mistakes in published articles.  
    * Some PubPeer threads criticize editorial handling of flagged articles.

=== 🤝 Balanced Summary ===

^ Strengths ^ Concerns ^
| Indexed, visible, and open access | Fast publication may sacrifice rigor |
| Broad thematic inclusion | Quality varies across special issues |
| Good for negative or confirmatory studies | Predatory publisher accusations persist |

=== 🧭 Conclusion ===

*Cancers* is a **moderately respected open-access oncology journal** offering high visibility, fast publication, and broad coverage. However, **critical evaluation of each article is essential** due to the variability in editorial rigor and the mass-production nature of MDPI’s publishing model.

**Recommendation:**  
Use *Cancers* for transparent, well-documented studies that benefit from rapid dissemination — but maintain a high standard of internal methodological rigor, and be selective as a reader.