有些国人永远抱着一副有色眼镜，觉得oa就是水。nc和sa不也是oa，两万多的版面费，很多高校发一篇至少奖励几十万。mdpi的期刊审稿又没放水，也不是不审稿直接给录用，每篇文章至少2-3个审稿人，很多一批文章初审就拒了。如果是34区期刊的话，没有什么不正规的地方。我觉得是一帮研究生不学无术，胡写了一篇想很快录用评奖学金甚至毕业，结果被拒稿，恼羞成怒来黑。oa在未来是大趋势，爱思唯尔和springer也在大力推出新oa，因为这帮水学生压根不敢投，也没得去黑。 mdpi的编辑我个人觉得是不行的，国内投稿一般是北京办事处的编辑在处理的，完全是按个人喜好来决定送不送审的。以我自己为例，之前投过1区，被拒，但至少是外审过的，被拒后的论文投了mdpi的water，隔天就被拒，只有编辑的意见，还是很模板的。 因为是oa期刊，发文量巨大，所以口碑上有问题。要说有问题，其他非oa的sci期刊未必没有问题，有问题的概率未必更低...只要有好的idea有科学意义，mdpi也是可以的 审稿正规，速度快。这个期刊处理稿件分为学术编辑和行政编辑，学术编辑的参与角色少，一个是论文审完了make decision，另一个是可以建议审稿人，绝大部分工作是不懂论文内容的行政编辑来做的，比如说实际邀请审稿人等。给这个出版社IF4+的期刊当过学术编辑，没啥参与感，不过倒是省事，也大大降低了发人情论文的可能性。但我个人喜好，在审mdpi 期刊的稿件时，对论文的novelty要求不太高，主要看内容的完整性。 审稿快，质量还行。但因为审稿快，对审稿慢的期刊不公平，所以口碑不好。三区当四区看。 还可以吧。当年实验室约稿，认为是OA，所以随便写了一篇投过去，结果一个星期就拒稿了！！毕竟>3的IF在那里，人家也是要脸面的呀。[机智][机智][机智] 后来认真挑了一个工作投过去，正常也是2.5左右的水平，他们审完，要求补点数据，哎，硬生生的提高到了3的水准才接收。。当然，这个工作如果直接投3.0的非OA的期刊，还是有点风险的。 水的不能再水，相同影响因子的话，根本达不到老牌期刊水平。再一个，发这个杂志的人，根本不会考虑学术声誉问题，大多是为了评职称，毕业，奖学金。一般场合下，都不好意思拿出来和别人分享。
需要。mdpi投稿流程：1、首先，从网络上下载这样的MDPI稿件模型。2、打开这样的模板，可以看到里面的内容。3、首先，咱们修改其中的title。4、然后，修改文章的类型，这里修改为article。5、最后，保存这样的文档为docx文件。6、注意：有很多文件类型可供选择（一定要用offic系列套件和软件）。
必须选。__pdi期刊投稿时，投稿系统必须要选special issue”这样才有可能被投入。?
mdpi三轮修改。
一、在初审阶段
1、论文方向与期刊不相符
一本mdpi期刊可刊登的专业方向是有限的，若投稿的论文超出了期刊的刊登范围，必定是会被拒稿的。
2、论文格式混乱
每本期刊对论文格式都有要求，且不同的刊物对论文格式要求会有一些差异，当论文格式比较乱，论文格式不符合要求，也是会被拒稿的。
3、论文重复率过高
期刊都会对论文的重复率有要求，重复率高说明文章的原创度不够，存在抄袭的行为，这是非常忌讳的。
二、在外审阶段
1、文章缺乏创新性
目前无论是什么期刊对论文的最基本要求就是创新性，若是文章的选题比较老套，在方法、结果等方面都没有创新，可能会被拒稿。
2、论文水平不符合期刊要求
Mdpi的期刊虽然有很多，不同的期刊对论文水平要求是不同，如果论文的质量达不到期刊要求的话，并且通过修改也没有办法到达要求就会被拒稿。
3、实验数据有问题
审稿人在审核论文时肯定会检验论文中的实验和数据，他们也会按照实验去进行验证，一是看实验是否合理，二是看作者给出的结果是否真实有效。对于实验不合理、数据不真实的可能会被拒稿。
4、找不到审稿人
遇到这种情况的会比较少，它主要是出现在一些比较冷门的行业中。
MDPI期刊审稿过程还是蛮严谨的。如果稿子顺利通过了外编这一关，那么之后至少会有两个相关研究领域的非常专业的审稿人来审这篇稿子，并提出他们的意见---这篇稿子是否能被接收，或者需要修改，以及具体的修改意见。
首先在官网上找到Manuscript Submission & Instructions for Authors这一栏。然后选择想要下载的期刊。最后，点击下面的 Instructions for Authors，选择 Microsoft Word template 下载即可。MDPI前身是于1996年成立的国际分子多样性保护组织（Molecular Diversity Preservation International），其主要工作为收集交流化合物样品，永久收藏具有历史价值的样品等。MDPI于2010年6月正式更名为MDPI（Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute，多学科数字出版机构），拥有200多种开放获取期刊，涵盖科学、技术、医学几乎所有领域。
在投稿模板中点击作者信息位置，弹出对话框。首次填写需点击添加，打开文本输入框，按文本框中的提示逐项填写即可。如果所填作者同时是通信联系人，请勾选中，并填写对应信息。（备注：1、“*”为必填项。2、通信作者的地址、电话请如实填写，方便日后文章星级证明的邮寄，及论文收录在精品期刊中的及时沟通。3、作者单位可自动记录，在重复填写时直接选择表单项即可。4、不同单位的作者姓名右上方会对应单位自动编号，修改单位，编号也会对应修改。）填好后单击保存，此时，在作者列表中即可看到您刚刚添加的作者。如果不只一位作者，您可以继续选择添加。在作者列表中，名字前方有“*”号的为通信作者，在这里您可以通过鼠标拖动操作，调整作者顺序，但请注意，第一作者和通信作者的作者简介等内容为必填。这些内容会部分出现在脚注上，为了严格保护您的个人信息中，作者的联系方式和电话手机不会出现。
不需要分栏排版的，只要文章是正常的论文格式就可以。投稿录用后，杂志社会有专门的排版编辑在做校对和排版的。
SCI投稿信件模板 一、投稿信 1. Dear Dr. XXX I am sending a manuscript entitled “XXXX” by XXXX, which I should like to submit for possible publication in the journal of XXXX. Yours sincerely 2. Dear Dr. XXX Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “XXX” by XXX, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of XXX. We have chosen this journal because it deals with XXX. We believe that sth would be of interest to the journal’s readers.3. Dear Dr. XXX Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “XXX” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source. We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. 二、询问有无收到稿件 Dear Editor, We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help. 三、询问论文审查回音 Dear Editor, It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciate your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible. 四、关于论文的总体审查意见 1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revision are list below. 2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below. 3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as XXX. 4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added. 5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of – because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of XXX. 6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory. 7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker. 8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined. 9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays. 10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used? 五、给编辑的回信 1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that XXX One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result. 2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission. 3. Thank you for your letter of XXX and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “XXX”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with their approval. 4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will see that our original findings are confirmed. 5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red. 6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript. 7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence. 8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision. 9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account. 10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper. 11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 results from a misinterpretation of the data. 12. We would have included a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had been available. 13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear from the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.
投稿不需要自己排版。 投稿稿件只需要内容，排版有专门的编辑人员的。 稿件要符合文档的格式。 文档格式要求 一、页面材料格式模板 1. 页边距：上下边距为2.54cm；左右边距为2.8cm 2. 页眉、页脚：页眉为1.5cm；页脚为1.75cm 3. 行间距：20p行距...
通常国际会议都设定了投稿模版和格式,以为标准化审稿和出版确立规范。建议您按照官方的投稿模版和格式来撰写论文，这可以保证您的论文符合会议的要求，避免投稿不成功的风险。如果您有自己的模版或其他格式的文章，也可以进行参考，但最好还是以官方模版为准，然后根据实际情况稍作调整。这可以提高您的投稿成功率，并且可以更好地展现您的学术研究实力和专业水平。如果您对于官方模版和格式有任何疑问，建议您可以联系会议主办方或者相关的会议机构，咨询和确认相关要求。
通常投稿格式与发表格式有很大区别，按照所投会议的模板写就行，一般都会有模板的，印刷的格式是确定录用了，经过编辑部重新编辑的。
在投稿可持续与可再生能源国际会议稿件时，需要根据会议要求提交相应的论文格式和模板。一般情况下，会议组委会会发布官方的投稿模板和格式要求，这些要求需要严格遵守。否则，文章可能无法满足审稿标准，进而影响文章的发表和交流。如果您有关于可持续与可再生能源国际会议稿件的具体投稿问题，请查看会议组委会发布的官方网站和相关文件，查看和下载提交稿件的详细指南。如果您需要订制特定的稿件格式，建议联系会议组织方的工作人员进行沟通并获得确认。从根本上讲，依据官方定为的格式，以_
投稿不需要自己排版。 投稿稿件只需要内容，排版有专门的编辑人员的。 稿件要符合文档的格式。 文档格式要求 一、页面材料格式模板 1. 页边距：上下边距为2.54cm；左右边距为2.8cm 2. 页眉、页脚：页眉为1.5cm；页脚为1.75cm 3. 行间距：20p行距...