Content deleted Content added
but also notes that ''Frontiers in Pharmacology of Anti-Cancer Drugs'' did not fall for the 2013 ''Science'' sting. |
bettet structure |
||
Line 6:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Frontiers in...'' journal series}}
{{hatnote|This article is about the ''Frontiers in...'' series published by [[Frontiers Media]]. Several journals have similar names but are published by other publishers and are not part this series. For other uses, see [[Frontiers (disambiguation)]].}}
'''''Frontiers in...''''' is a series of [[open-access]] [[academic journal]] published by [[Frontiers Media]] since 2007. Since then, the series expanded to over 60 journals. The series uses [[open peer review]], where the names of reviewers of accepted articles are made public, but opinions are divided about the quality of the journals and whether or not they constitute [[predatory publishing]].
==History==
The first journal published was ''Frontiers in Neuroscience'', which opened for submission as a [[beta release#Beta|beta version]] in 2007, and for official submissions in January 2008.<ref>{{cite web|title=About Frontiers|url=https://www.frontiersin.org/about/history|publisher=Frontiers Media|accessdate=14 March 2018}}</ref> In 2010, Frontiers launched a series of another eleven journals in [[medicine]] and [[science]], and the series kept expanding since. As of 2015, 16 of their journals had [[impact factors]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.citefactor.org/journal-impact-factor-list-2014_F.html |title=Journal Impact Factor 2014 |publisher=CiteFactor |accessdate=2015-12-24}}</ref> According to Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky in the magazine ''The Nautilus'', the acceptance rate of manuscripts in Frontiers journals is reported to be near 90%.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Marcus |first1=Adam |last2=Oransky |first2=Ivan |date=7 December 2017 |title=Why Garbage Science Gets Published|url=http://nautil.us/issue/55/trust/why-garbage-science-gets-published|magazine=Nautilus}}</ref> [[SciELO]] reports a rejection rate of 20% of manuscripts, compared to ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' which rejects 90% of them, but also notes that ''Frontiers in Pharmacology of Anti-Cancer Drugs'' did not fall for the [[2013 Science sting|2013 ''Science'' sting]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Controversial Article in The Journal “Science” exposes the weaknesses of Peer-Review in a set of Open Access Journals |work= SciELO in Perspective|url=http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/11/05/controversial-article-in-the-journal-science-exposes-the-weaknesses-of-peer-review-in-a-set-of-open-access-journals/#.Wqnx5edG02w |date=5 November 2013}}</ref> According to Allison and James Kaufman in the book ''Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science'', "Frontiers has used an in-house journals management software that does not give reviewers the option to recommend the rejection of manuscripts" and that the "system is setup to make it almost impossible to reject papers".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kaufman|first1=Allison B.|last2=Kaufman|first2=James C.|title=Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science|date=2018|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=9780262037426|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=dwFKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=journal+frontiers+predatory&source=bl&ots=B60YRUZrHK&sig=4DnPd2BCaSC73FVJhl2xN90ugzk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGpaWzt-3ZAhUIOawKHf_GC4Q4PBDoAQg2MAI#v=onepage&q=Frontiers&f=false|language=en|page=292}}</ref>▼
The first journal published was ''Frontiers in Neuroscience'', which opened for submission as a [[beta release#Beta|beta version]] in 2007, and for official submissions in January 2008.<ref>{{cite web|title=About Frontiers|url=https://www.frontiersin.org/about/history|publisher=Frontiers Media|accessdate=14 March 2018}}</ref> In 2010, Frontiers launched a series of another eleven journals in [[medicine]] and [[science]], and the series kept expanding since.
The series and its publisher have often been criticized for [[predatory open access|predatory practices]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Schneider |first=Leonid |title=Is Frontiers a potential predatory publisher?|url=https://forbetterscience.com/2015/10/28/is-frontiers-a-potential-predatory-publisher/|website=For Better Science|date=28 October 2015|access-date=2017-03-14}}</ref> having appeared on [[Beall's list]] before it was taken down.<ref>{{cite web|last=Basken |first=Paul |title=Why Beall's List Died — and What It Left Unresolved About Open Access|url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Beall-s-List-Died-/241171|website=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]|date=12 September 2017|access-date=2017-03-14}}</ref> The inclusion of Frontiers journals on Beall's list was met with backlash amongst some researchers.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bloudoff-Indelicato|first1=Mollie|title=Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers|journal=Nature|date=23 October 2015|volume=526|issue=7575|pages=613–613|doi=10.1038/526613f}}</ref> Some researchers analyze predatory publishing by taking dataset with and without Frontiers journals.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Savina|first1=Tatiana|last2=Sterligov|first2=Ivan|title=Prevalence of Potentially Predatory Publishing in Scopus on the Country Level|url=http://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/43143/1/UrFU_conference_November_2016_Sterligov.pdf|publisher=Ural Federal University|accessdate=15 March 2018|date=24 November 2016}}</ref>▼
In 2015, Frontiers Media removed the entire [[editorial board]]s of ''Frontiers in Medicine'' and ''Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine'' after [[editor]]s complained that Frontiers Media staff were "interfering with editorial decisions and violating core principles of medical publishing".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Enserink|first1=Martin|title=Open-access publisher sacks 31 editors amid fierce row over independence|journal=Science|date=20 May 2015|doi=10.1126/science.aac4629}}</ref>
==Quality and impact==
▲
▲The series and its publisher have often been criticized for [[predatory open access|predatory practices]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Schneider |first=Leonid |title=Is Frontiers a potential predatory publisher?|url=https://forbetterscience.com/2015/10/28/is-frontiers-a-potential-predatory-publisher/|website=For Better Science|date=28 October 2015|access-date=2017-03-14}}</ref> having appeared on [[Beall's list]] before it was taken down.<ref>{{cite web|last=Basken |first=Paul |title=Why Beall's List Died — and What It Left Unresolved About Open Access|url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Beall-s-List-Died-/241171|website=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]|date=12 September 2017|access-date=2017-03-14}}</ref> The inclusion of Frontiers journals on Beall's list was met with backlash amongst some researchers.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bloudoff-Indelicato|first1=Mollie|title=Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers|journal=Nature|date=23 October 2015|volume=526|issue=7575|pages=613–613|doi=10.1038/526613f}}</ref> Some researchers analyze predatory publishing by taking dataset with and without Frontiers journals.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Savina|first1=Tatiana|last2=Sterligov|first2=Ivan|title=Prevalence of Potentially Predatory Publishing in Scopus on the Country Level|url=http://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/43143/1/UrFU_conference_November_2016_Sterligov.pdf|publisher=Ural Federal University|accessdate=15 March 2018|date=24 November 2016}}</ref>
==List of journals==
| |||