Content deleted Content added
bettet structure |
gender bias |
||
Line 18:
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>
The open peer review nature of the series allows for studies of [[genders bias]] in peer review. A 2017 study published in ''[[eLife]]'' showed that "women are underrepresented in the peer-review process", and that "editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Helmer|first1=Markus|last2=Schottdorf|first2=Manuel|last3=Neef|first3=Andreas|last4=Battaglia|first4=Demian|title=Gender bias in scholarly peer review|journal=eLife|date=21 March 2017|volume=6|doi=10.7554/elife.21718|language=en|issn=2050-084X}}</ref>
==List of journals==
In February 2016, the series contained 54 journals,<ref name="Spezi">{{cite journal|last1=Spezi |first1=Valerie |first2=Simon |last2=Wakeling |first3=Stephen |last3=Pinfield |first4=Claire |last4=Creaser |first5=Jenny |last5=Fry |first6=Peter |last6=Willett| title=Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review |journal=Journal of Documentation |volume=73 |pages=263–283 |doi=10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082 |quote=Series [...] might, taken as a whole, be viewed as a broad disciplinary scope journal. This is particularly the case when series titles seem to be marketed and managed as a coherent set rather than as separate titles.}}</ref> a number that grew to 62 by 2017. The collection of all the journals in the series is sometimes considered a [[mega journal]], as is the [[BioMed Central]] series.<ref name="Spezi"/><ref>{{cite journal|last=Domnina |first=T. N. |title=A megajournal as a new type of scientific publication |journal=Scientific and Technical Information Processing |volume=43 |year=2016 |pages=241–250 |doi=10.3103/S0147688216040079}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Binfield |first=Peter |date=2013-12-17 |title=Opening Science |chapter=Novel scholarly journal concepts |pages=155–163 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_10 |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media]] |isbn=978-3-319-00025-1 |editor-first1=S. |editor-last1=Bartling |editor-first2=S. |editor-last2=Friesike}}</ref>
| |||