In my humble opinion, and quite extensive experience in academia, MDPI is *not a reputable publisher, in general, and on average. In the sense, that:

• having papers in an MDPI journal does not strengthen one's CV (and tenure, and promotion cases, on average), and also
• publications in MDPI do not correlate sufficiently high enough to constitute important or even reputable scientific progress.

My opinion is based on the following data/information:

• I am not aware of any result of even slight important or relevance to contemporary research in my field of study (STEM, basic research, math) that appeared on an MDPI journal.

• I am not aware of any reputable academic serving as an editor there.

• I have bad experience with spam received from MDPI.

In my humble opinion, and quite extensive experience in academia, MDPI is not a reputable publisher, in general, and on average, in the sense that:

• having papers in an MDPI journal does not strengthen one's CV (and tenure, and promotion cases, on average), and also
• publications in MDPI do not correlate high enough to papers that constitute important or even reputable scientific progress.

My opinion is based on the following data/information:

• I am not aware of any result of even slight importance or relevance to contemporary research in my field of study (STEM, basic research, mathematics) that appeared in an MDPI journal.

• I am not aware of any reputable academic in my community serving as an editor there.

• I have very bad experience with spam received from MDPI.