Are MDPI, Frontiers and Heliyon Safe for Chinese Researchers in 2026?

Search "MDPI 水刊" or "Frontiers 预警" on any Chinese platform and you will find thousands of anxious threads. The question underneath them is always the same. If I publish in one of these journals, will my university count it, will my supervisor respect it, and will it hurt me later? This guide gives a direct answer to whether MDPI, Frontiers and Heliyon are safe for Chinese researchers in 2026, publisher by publisher, and shows how to decide for your own paper rather than relying on rumour.

Start with the right question

"Is MDPI safe?" cannot be answered, because MDPI publishes more than 400 journals with very different editorial records. The same is true of Frontiers. The correct question has three parts. Is this specific journal indexed in the database my institution requires? Is it on the CAS early warning list or my institution's own negative list? And does its recent record (retractions, special-issue volume, author mix) suggest it might be warned next year?

Answer those three questions for a specific journal and the publisher's overall reputation becomes almost irrelevant.

MDPI

MDPI is the largest open access publisher by article volume. Most of its established titles are indexed in Web of Science and Scopus, many carry respectable impact factors, and peer review is real, if fast. The concern in China is different. Several MDPI journals have appeared on past editions of the CAS early warning list, usually because of very high volume, heavy reliance on special issues and a high proportion of authors from a small number of countries. Some Chinese universities and hospitals now list specific MDPI titles on internal negative lists.

Our balanced assessment of whether MDPI journals are legitimate covers the international picture. For a Chinese researcher, the practical rule is that an MDPI journal that is not on the operative warning list, is in your required index and matches your scope can be a sound choice, especially for applied or interdisciplinary work. Two of our published case studies involved MDPI journals with clean records: an education paper accepted in an SSCI Q2 MDPI journal after two earlier desk rejections (case study →) and a management paper accepted in an SCI Q2 MDPI journal in under four months (case study →).

Frontiers

Frontiers journals are indexed, run a collaborative review model and publish heavily through Research Topics, which function like special issues. In China the reputation of Frontiers titles varies sharply by field. Some are well regarded in neuroscience and psychology. Others have grown so fast that departmental committees discount them informally even when no written rule exists. Frontiers titles have also appeared on past warning list editions. Read our post on whether Frontiers journals are legitimate for the wider view, then apply the three checks to the specific title.

Heliyon

Heliyon is the clearest case study of the difference between international indexing and Chinese institutional recognition. Clarivate placed the journal on hold in September 2024. The publisher's audit led to 687 retractions and more than 1,100 corrections to the record across twelve years of content. On 14 May 2026, Clarivate removed the hold, and the journal is expected to receive a new impact factor in the October 2026 JCR update. Annual output fell from well over ten thousand articles in 2023 and 2024 to a few thousand in 2025.

So Heliyon is indexed again. Is it safe for a Chinese researcher? Only if it is not on the warning list your institution applies. Heliyon was reported on the 2025 edition, and universities using that edition will not count a Heliyon paper regardless of what Clarivate decided in May. Our post on checking the CAS early warning list explains how to verify the operative edition.

Forward-looking risk: reading the signs before the list does

The warning list is backward-looking. It reacts to volume, retractions and author concentration that have already happened. You can read the same signs a year earlier. Look at these markers for any candidate journal:

Two or more red markers means the journal is a candidate for next year's list. If your paper will be assessed two or three years from now, that matters as much as today's status.

The supervisor problem

Many Chinese PhD students tell us that their supervisor forbids MDPI or Frontiers entirely, even where no written rule exists. This is usually a judgement about how the department's committee will read the CV, and it is worth respecting. If your supervisor is firm, do not spend energy arguing. Redirect to a journal in the same quartile from a publisher the supervisor trusts. The Springer Nature guide, the Elsevier guide and the Taylor and Francis guide are good starting points, and our wider guide for Chinese researchers targeting SCI and SSCI Q1 and Q2 journals covers strategy.

A simple decision rule

For the general method of building and screening a shortlist, read how to create a journal shortlist. If you would like a PhD editor to screen your shortlist against your institution's current rule, our Submission Support service includes that step.

Journal status described here reflects public reports up to early September 2026. Hold decisions, impact factors and warning list editions change. Verify the specific journal on the official platforms before submitting.

微信 · WeChat

Add us on WeChat

Scan the QR code to reach the Research Ramp team directly on WeChat.

Scan to add as friend