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.