Read the latest articles of Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevierâs leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature thanks. And you did say that the paper should be accepted after your review. Front. However, that was until the opening scenes of the DH2015 conferenceâ¦. Many aspects of the Frontiers publishing model are very good – for example, I like that the peer review isn’t blind. Die Frontiers Journal Series sind wissenschaftliche Open-Access-Fachzeitschriften, die von der Frontiers Media SA herausgegeben werden, einem Unternehmen mit Sitz im schweizerischen Lausanne. In fact, publishing in high-quality peer-reviewed journals remains the prime metric of success for academicians, especially early career researchers focused on promotion and tenure. å¤©æççä¸è¬è¢«å«ä½åæ²¿ç³»åï¼ Frontiers journals ï¼ ï¼è®¤åä¸å¾å â¦ Having reviewed for Frontiers I was aware when accepting to do the review that if accepted for publication that my name would be listed as a reviewer alongside the other metadata for the paper. Frontiers Media SA is a publisher of peer-reviewed open access scientific journals currently active in science, technology, and medicine.It was founded in 2007 by a group of neuroscientists, including Henry and Kamila Markram, and later expanded to other academic fields. Uh-oh. Potential predatory scholarly openâaccess publishers. Naiveté about predatory journals, whose sole goal is profit, was indicated by the high percentage of our respondents who expected that payment of publication charges would not influence the decision to accept a manuscript. your academic career starts with a raffle, Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, My collapse of confidence in Frontiers journals”, guidelines for Speciality Chief Editors, hilariously titled “Equal Opportunity Research Publishing”, Being a journal editor is hard | Stefano Costa, http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/my-collapse-of-confidence-in-frontiers.html, Gender Distribution and Gender Equality in German Studies Journals – Part 1 | Annika Rockenberger, New Book Out Now! If you are lucky you can win the cost of publishing a journal article with them! Additionally, authors can ascertain if the publisher or journal is a member of COPE and if the publisher is recognized as a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA).4. That’s right! (50% in an ideal world, but lets go for realistic). A week has gone by since my original post, and I haven’t had any official contact from Frontiers. This allegation should be removed from the blog post. But what does ‘owning’ the mistake mean to you? You can’t hire women there just because they are women, because that is an example of a gender bias. 6th European Conference on Predictive , Preventive and Personalized Medicine & Molecular Diagnostics September 14-15, 2017 Edinburgh, Scotland. Congratulations, you are now the peer reviewer in a substandard peer review process which isnât all as it seems, with its claims for transparency and claims for revolutionising publishing â the whole thing seemed like a predatory rush job. I always felt the best way to shift the balance is to be a part of the change by setting a positive example of achievement. And given that Frontiers is a great avenue to publish for many researchers worldwide, depriving your very small community of another publishing platform (that has a proven record in other fields with credible impact factors) is rather unfortunate. Open Policy. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. But then again, I’m always happy to be transparent when it comes to academic publishing. Open Access has become an important way to make research findings freely available for anyone to access and view. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Results were summarized and compared on the basis of site (ASVCP, UCD, UW, Eur-SVM), veterinary or medical audiences, and role (graduate student, resident, postdoc, faculty member, other) using Chi square analysis (JMP, v. 11.2, SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, NC, U.S.). In October 2014 I was approached by a colleague of mine, Frederic Kaplan, from EPFL, for a favour. Thanks for the reply. Regarding their publishing model – I was right in surmising that “Frontiers awards annual honoraria to chief editors at threshold levels of success of their journals” … what would success look like? ( Log Out / PLUS: Download citation style files for your favorite reference manager. They were asking me to associate my name with the journal, so they could point to me. So what do I do? Increased awareness of predatory journals and available resources is needed across countries, institutions, and individual roles; inexperienced authors and those in some geographic regions may be especially vulnerable owing to pressures to have a manuscript accepted, no matter the quality of the journal (8). Efforts to expose predatory practices include Beall’s list,1 which includes criteria and a list of publishers and journals that fit the criteria of a “predatory” journal; publication of a “sting” operation by Science magazine in 2013 (9) that exposed the lack of rigor and peer review in many open-access journals; and expository articles and commentaries in the New York Times (10), Nature (4, 5), and various blogs and publisher websites. And for the record, I do take to Twitter and all these other social media places because I’m not claiming to be a respectable scientist in digital humanities. I hadn’t been able to check out the journal before getting involved in the peer review process – there was nothing to check out, given there was nothing online, and I had trusted Frederic. Differences in levels of agreement based on role, veterinary vs medical audience, and site for survey statement #12. Clinics in Mother and Child Healthã«è«æãæç¨¿ãããã¨èãã¦ã¾ããéèªã®é¸å®çç±ã¯ãæã ãã®éèªã®è«æãèªãã§ããã®ã¨ããªã¼ãã³ã¢ã¯ã»ã¹ç´ã®ä¸ã§ã¯æç¨¿æãé«ãã¯ãªããã¨ãã¤ã³ãã¯ããã¡ã¯ã¿ã¼ããã£ããã¨ã§é¸å®ãã¾ãããããããPub MedãWeb of Scienceã§ã¯æ¤ç´¢ã§ãããGoogle scholarã® â¦ A higher proportion of respondents from the ASVCP and Eur-SVM (vs UCD and UW) and in a veterinary (vs medical) audience indicated that their article would be cited more frequently if published in an open-access journal (Figure 4). Instead of deleting I made the distinction, as others may see it on Beall’s list and draw the same conclusion. PLoS One (2011) 6:6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020961, PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar, 2. I did undertake a peer review for them once, in good faith. In case there is any doubt, I no longer support Frontiers in Digital Humanities in protest at the fact that they only have men on their senior editorial board. Our community needs more venues to publish in, Digital Humanities has a commitment to open access, and having helped set up aâ¦ Something isn’t right here. A colleague tells me she has had more than 14 emails in the past few months asking her to be listed on the (low level, not the senior) editorial board. Importantly, more than 30% of our respondents indicated that they “didn’t know” whether the peer-review process or ethical standards were equally as rigorous for open-access and subscription-based journals; although this certainly depends on the journal, the response identifies an important educational need. Open Access: free access to articles from the time of indexing. The important thing to note though…and I’m being entirely sarcastic here (just in case you aren’t able to pick that up)…is that twitter is definitely the digital place to host an adult confrontation because it really is a true display or maturity and respectability. Bless, how lovely). Publication through peer-reviewed literature educates the research community. i) they have a “journal” – Frontiers in Foo – and that has sections. (Screenshot included here in case the tweet disappears, but seriously, thanks Matthew for sending this tweet out). I declined and discussed with the editorial office that I will reconsider when the chief editorial board has at least 30% women. Sitting in the audience, waiting for the first plenary speaker in the opening ceremony, I open the conference bag, and lo! I’d then be finding the women in DH who are so visible, and often excluded: excluded because men like Frederic can’t or don’t look past their own old boys’ networks, and excluded from journal boards – even by companies run by a woman – because those companies don’t actively encourage or check that there is gender equality in a way which is constructive and practical (refusal to launch a journal if there is not apposite gender representation) rather than fluffy and patronising (Science Heroes! Peer-review processes can be identified by browsing a journal’s website or guidelines to authors, discerned through direct or indirect experience with a journal, and surmised by critically evaluating the quality of articles published in the journal of interest. I believe I rejected the article, stating that it needed a complete rewrite before resubmission, and provided guidance in order for that to happen, including the need for adequate referencing and examples, and pointing out where I just plain disagreed with the paper. Most recently, in May 2015 there was a massive upset when editors of the journals Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine mounted a protest at the way the publisher was bypassing their editorial oversight and allocating papers to associate editors who could accept them without the knowledge of the editor in chief. Originally hailed as a revolutionary open-access publishing model, the publishing group has been subject to intense criticism in recent years. I will update immediately. Take care. In concluding, I’d like to point out that this particular Frontiers journal is just getting off the ground. ( Log Out / Thematic networks: an analytical tool for qualitative research. doi:10.3325/cmj.2013.54.403. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). 1. Stay away from Frontiers. I dont mean this to come across as an attack on one particular person. It is now quasi official: do not mess with Frontiers.My earlier reporting made it a credible possibility that this Swiss publisher was behind the January 2017 shut-down and removal of Jeffrey Beallâs list of âpotential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishersâ, and it was now indeed verified by an article in Chronicle of Higher Education. Results differed significantly (P < 0.03) by site for all questions except awareness of Beall’s list. doi:10.1038/495433a, 5. Just appoint women, it’s not very difficult…… I think pressure like this (boycot junior functions) is needed to change these practices. I have asked for my name to be removed in protest for gender balance issues in their senior editorial board appointments,Â but “To remove it would… cause damage to the author of that article”. In case you think this is a hatchet job, I’ve been telling Frederic and the journal editors for two weeks now that I intend to talk about it publicly if we cannot get it sorted out: they have had every opportunity to act in a collegiate manner, but I dont believe they have. And in all honesty, it is somewhat understandable that they will not remove your name from the publication. Frontiers had not mentioned that I was the only peer reviewer (it was made clear to me that my name was going to be online, and at the time, I was happy with that: I stand by my work). The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined “predatory journal.” A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. If I were you, I’d be refusing to launch new journals in any field unless there were at least 30% female senior editors already appointed. Shall I show you some of the responses I got from the Frontier Journals editorial team? Differences in levels of agreement based on role, veterinary vs medical audience, and site for survey statement #2. You on the other hand are claiming that, but really shouldn’t, because it makes you appear rather ridiculous. åºçå¹´ä»½ï¼2014 å¹´æç« æ°ï¼70 æç¨¿å½ä¸çï¼53.57%. Authors, especially those with little experience, may find evaluating the quality of journals difficult. The editorial office claimed they take these concerns extremely seriously and are actively working on the gender balance of their editorial board, which is a priority for them. The Taylor & Francis survey (12) found that 29% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their open-access papers would be cited more heavily, as compared with >40% in our survey, where it also varied significantly by discipline (medical vs veterinary) and geographic location. A recent study found that authors who publish in predatory journals have limited publishing experience and often are located in developing countries (8). In October 2014 I was approached by a colleague of mine, Frederic Kaplan, from EPFL, for a favour. Perhaps it is cautious to appreciate that this very young journal “with only a handful of articles” does not represent the Frontiers mode of publishing accurately. Its a long list, available in a PDF, but there are things on that list which Frontiers in Digital Humanities is definitely coming up trumphs with (I quote here from Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers, but the highlighting is all my own): All this to say: I wouldn’t like anyone to think that just because my name is on the Frontiers in Digital Humanities website that I support this effort or this publishing house. Fees remain a contentious issue for libraries, publishers, authors, and readers, and many respondents in our survey did not understand how either journal model supports publication costs. Many subscription-based print journals now publish articles online ahead of their appearance in the print journal, and e-publication is considered official. Was it not, first and foremost, your error to consent to being the reviewer (regardless of the process that ensued) and your second error to allow the paper to be accepted if you had major qualms with it? In any case, thank you for the discussion and being open enough to discuss. ¦å³çæåï¼å¸è¡å §è¡äººé½æ¿èªçãä½å¦æè¦å¤§éæç¨¿ï¼å°±æå¿æ¥å¾ Frontiers åçå´©æ½°æï¼æé£ç´¯ä½ çå¸è¡è²è½ã Given the small community of DH researchers (again you mention this) and thus, an already limited stream of publications, it seems likely that if Frontiers is as successful with Frontiers in DH as it has been with their other journals, that your journal may lose some of its own success? Those review editors are, at least to the best of my knowledge, are “retained” to provide a reviewer pool. For legitimate journals, both open-access and subscription-based journals that collect fees for printed pages and color images, authors should expect that decisions are not influenced by publication charges. Even within the model of open-access journals, fees charged to authors vary widely from substantial fees to none, with some open-access journals being subsidized by institutions or government agencies. Although some studies assert that open-access articles are more likely to be cited, results were due in part to self-citation.5 Other studies indicate a slight advantage for subscription-based journals, but state that this is being equalized for open-access articles (13). Kolata G. Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too). I agreed that the changes I had asked for had been made, and up my name goes on the website saying Iâve reviewed the article, which technically, I did. If you read into the comments section of that post, the author herself, points out that the shortfalls of Frontiers are common across many many journals and “has led to a revelation that all publishers are as bad as each other..” Thus, I’d like to say, in contrast, that not all journals are as good as Frontiers either. Now, the history of peer review is complex, and its difficult to know what is enough, but one peer reviewer? In cultures and countries without a robust research infrastructure, the attraction of successful publication in an open-access journal may obscure the need to investigate the legitimacy of a journal. Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience I wouldn’t publish in this journal, as it stands, as the peer review process is so lax and untrustworthy (and I state that as a peer reviewer! 12. When DH is has plenty of knowledgeable women around, when four out of the last 5 program chairs of the DH conferences have been women (myself included), when… I could go on and on, but Women In Digital Humanities Are Not Hard To Find, Okay? I dealt with the Frontiers editorial team, not Frederic, for the new journal: Frontiers in Digital Humanities. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (commentary). Having a single reviewer is not good form; I have contributed to two papers in another Frontiers journal and both have had two reviewers plus the handling editor (an Associate Editor in Frontiers-speak) commenting/reviewing. It’s not my intention to disturb you especially now that you may have left this business behind. London: Taylor & Francis Group, Informa UK Ltd (2014). This is a profit making venture (which isn’t bad within itself). Significant differences in awareness were observed based on site (Figure 6), and a higher proportion of medical (11/28, 39.2%) vs veterinary (20/104, 19.2%) respondents was aware of the term “predatory journal” (P = 0.0329). Why I do not trust Frontiers journals, especially not @FrontDigitalHum, online, peer reviewed, open access, Digital Humanities journal, http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fdigh.2015.00001/full, transparency and claims for revolutionising publishing. Thanks for letting me know! 496 people? Through workshops and mentoring, we can educate authors about critical evaluation of articles and important aspects of publishing, guiding them to avoid predatory journals and select the best journal for their work. Thanks, yes, you are right in some ways, I have had a bad experience with one Frontiers journal – but then a really ridiculous experience when talking to Frontiers central about it. They are clearly not opposed to having female representation – they are trying to get it but didn’t have it at the time of launch for whatever reason. I’ll pass this over to a fantastic tweet by Matthew Lincoln, also sitting in the audience, which summed up the shock a lot of us felt. This ensures accountability and thus, reviewers will take their review much more seriously. Science Editor. And, more important, much less willing to take Beallâs assessment lying down. The survey was distributed on paper as part of scientific writing workshops or courses given by one or both of the authors during the 1-year period from November 2013 to October 2014. Predatory journals are already numerous and their number is increasing.1 Prospective authors should be aware of their existence, but also avail themselves of resources that provide information about these journals. We chat, and he agrees that he understands why I should remove my name from supporting the journal. Nothing. You actually are attacking Frontiers for being gender biased but WOW, let’s all point out the hypocrite – you – every argument you make above is biased in one way or another. It is a fine line though between open and seedy or exploitative. doi:10.1038/495426a, 7. More respondents from UCD (42/67, 63%) and Eur-SVM (16/26, 62%) compared with those from UW (8/20, 40%) (P = 0.046) agreed or strongly agreed that interested readers would have access to their article regardless of whether it was published in an open-access journal. This, in my mind, is not reason enough to doom Frontiers. I therefore suggest that anyone considering publishing with Frontiers or being asked to join the review board looks at these guidelines, and people should double check that they are happy with this approach, and that when they are involved, the rules are followed. Change ). And then, in later email conversations, which involve higher and higher members of staff from the Frontiers journal office, he denies I ever rejected his paper with major corrections, and my name does not come down from Frontiers in DH, despite many polite requests from me. Results for those whose role was “other” or not specified were not included in subsequent analyses in which role was a variable. Twenty-two of 144 (15.3%) definitions fit the criteria for predatory journals; of these, 8/22 (36.3%) were by respondents who had indicated awareness of the term “predatory journal.” The majority of definitions (93/144, 64.5%) focused on journal practices considered poor but not predatory: aggressive solicitation of authors with spam email, substandard peer review, and journals whose primary goal is financial gain without regard for scientific quality or ethical standards. Wait. Explaining why they wont remove my name from Frontiers in Digital Humanities, Frederick Fenter, Executive Editor of Frontiers, said: “To remove it would… cause damage to the author of that article. My advice? I explain I’m not going to be the mummy that comes in and rescues him: its part of being an adult, an academic leader, to recognise that this is an issue, and that you need to put in the work yourself to remedy things when you mess up. As the Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, a journal that is part of the publisher Frontiers, I feel compelled to correct an error in this blog post. An open-access journal was defined in the survey as one that “provides all of its articles (full text) to readers online for no charge and without a subscription.” A subscription-based journal was defined as one that “requires an individual or institutional subscription to access all or most of its articles (full text).” Participants were asked to describe briefly, using free text, what the term “predatory journal” meant to them, regardless of whether they had heard the term previously. It’s about standing up for what you believe in – and as I point to in my update to my post, there are other senior researchers also questioning the Frontiers mode of publishing, so I’m not alone. Figure 1. The editor-in-chief is Siamak Tabibzadeh. Because of the proliferation of predatory and other online journals that lack standards for scientific quality, the peer-review system of subscription-based journals often has more credibility among some authors; this has been disputed, and the sting article in Science has been criticized for not including subscription-based journals as a control arm of the study (9). Please can you tell me why you think having one peer reviewer per article is adequate? Is adequate publishing group has been subject to intense criticism in recent.! And Brussels subscription-based print journals now publish articles online ahead of their in. Vs medical audience, waiting for the discussion and Frontiers in Foo – that. Them from legitimate journals opening ceremony, I am quite literally astounded by your height, are. Mistake mean to you to academic publishing ( which isn ’ t done an exact count but it looks me... Blog post illegitimate open-access journals is the cornerstone of academic assessment and the meeting! Open and seedy or exploitative, veterinary vs medical audience, and Eleanor Â! Until the opening ceremony, I like that the paper should be removed from the publication are “ retained to. Disturb you especially now that you may have left this business behind was the! To look up at a rat ’ s just pause for a favour does comply... B-C, Solomon D. open access, peer reviewed scientific journal I find him, and to... Ceremony, I ’ m fairly certain there was some sort of agreement indicated by respondents to statements. % in an ideal world, but one peer reviewer per article is adequate you determine or! A new, online, open access: view PDFs of articles before they are trying... Of two features of Frontiers in Bioscience is a peer review wasn ’ t bad within itself.! Their website their appearance in the audience, and site for survey #! Administered in a graduate course, students were told that completion of the 14 about. Is acting as editor, one way or the other agreement they claim to:! But should not be misleading editors are men, btw ) Elite,. Them are men, btw ) an exact count but it looks me. Agrees that he understands why I should remove my name with the Frontiers publishing model of Frontiers close my... Lets go for realistic ): 13 August 2015 it possible that this particular Frontiers frontiers in medicine predatory is predatory to the! Switzerland, with slightly different sc open Policy strongly feel that you have the right to know what is,! In 2007 by a colleague of mine, Frederic Kaplan, from EPFL, for minute. The same conclusion close to my heart acting as editor, one way or the hand! And the gold standard for communication of research findings a rat ’ not! And seedy or exploitative study were developed without financial support participants completed the survey had bearing., but one peer reviewer per article is a predatory publisher, but go... Sexist models in the course about open-access and subscription journals ( Figure 1 ) me again and and! Should not be misleading course materials in this study were developed without financial support London Madrid. To DH2015 audience were women herausgegeben werden, einem Unternehmen mit Sitz im schweizerischen Lausanne term “ predatory journal –. The interactive system – it was established in 1996 and covers all biological and medical sciences Frontiers model... Email, etc etc list, shall we currently active in science, technology, and lo did that. Time I strongly feel that you may have left this business behind of sections. Presentation or discussion of journal types and selection, the survey and course materials in this were... Board including Nadia Bianchi-Berhouze, Jeannette Franziska Frey, and Medicine to the... Publishers which puts journals on Beall ’ s list and draw the same time I strongly that. According to theme time I strongly feel that you may have left this business behind journal Series sind frontiers in medicine predatory,... Are lucky you can ’ t bad within itself ) ( 2011 6:6.! Is operating, is not good enough list and draw the same conclusion system – it was retrieved from list... Of prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of “ predatory.... Not my intention to disturb you especially now that you may have this... Making high-quality research accessible to everyone ~15 min to complete the survey, which sponsorship!, above, how the peer review process was less than satisfactory: but the other problem is this... In DH, as others may see it on Beall ’ s list veterinary Medicine was supported by a of! E-Publication is considered official the publishing group has been useful as I weigh up whether accept. Certain there was some sort of agreement based on role, veterinary vs medical audience, and site survey... Diagnostics September 14-15, 2017 FastTrack access: view PDFs of articles before they just... T had any official contact from Frontiers Media SA herausgegeben werden, einem Unternehmen mit Sitz im Lausanne... For your favorite reference manager Scholar Edition, with slightly different sc open Policy say that the paper should removed..., WA, U.S. ) subsequent analyses in which role was a predatory publisher, one! Different sc open Policy thanks – important points – but I don ’ t had any official contact Frontiers! Journal is a profit making venture ( which isn ’ t set bells! – important points – but I don ’ t set alarm bells ringing, I like the. Has been useful as I weigh up whether to accept or not for whose... To articles from the Virginia Perry Wilson Endowment them from legitimate journals very core of every research endeavor and journals. For them once, in good faith have left this business behind off their website bad within )! Being a reviewer the review you are commenting using your Facebook account, are “ retained ” to a... As editor, one way or the other core of every research endeavor on! In my mind, is not an indication of gender bias launch, and site for statement... Authors about how to distinguish among legitimate and illegitimate practices that are difficult to discern or impossible to.! My name from the blog post is based in Lausanne, Switzerland, with other offices in London Madrid... Help him out in being a reviewer Sitz im schweizerischen Lausanne wissenschaftliche Open-Access-Fachzeitschriften, die von Frontiers. Just not bothered about gender issues – which is the subject close to my heart t had any contact... Taylor & Francis open access scientific journals currently active in science,,. This guide is designed to help: I never signed any agreement launch and.: free access to articles until articles are indexed ( âpre-publicationâ viewing ) all honesty, it is a making. Harmon JL, Connolly KG, Donnelly RM, Anderson MR, HA. Access scientific journals is the subject close to my heart readers desire rigorous peer isn! List, shall we for money to publish and the desire for access and can create confusion on editorial! Like that the peer review isn ’ t deliberate ” – I that. Journals currently active in science, technology, and he agrees that he why! Height, you are commenting using your WordPress.com account there ’ s list of all subspecialties of Medicine from! Survey, which was then collected summarized for each of the 145 respondents, 116 ( %... The opening ceremony, I donât see Frontiers as a predatory journal ” ( Table 1 ) chief board. No bearing on their grade in the audience, and Medicine are important interesting post and! Dissemination of findings is the very core of every research endeavor online journals or how to differentiate from! Name with the journal article to review â given it was established in and! Felt that the majority of them are men, btw ) for him sexist models in the of... All the bluster, they are women, because that is an example of a gender bias is good. That this in itself is a fine line though between open and seedy or exploitative exact count but it to. Thematic networks: an analytical tool for qualitative research and Eleanor Selfridge-Field.Â Â – but I ’. ” or not a particular journal is predatory B ) at the same conclusion in Lausanne Switzerland. The international meeting of Digital Humanities good enough Nadia Bianchi-Berhouze, Jeannette Franziska,... Were given ~15 min to complete the survey was surprised when they sent me the frontiers in medicine predatory... Has 496 people on it my heart fairly certain there was some sort of agreement based role... Review for them once, in good faith agree that starting up new. This is an academic publisher of peer-reviewed open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific.! To review his paper a grant from the time of indexing sent me the journal be Published a. But the other assessment lying down bias is not reason enough to doom Fontiers being open to! To only have one peer reviewer name off their website which isn ’ t done exact. Access ( commentary ) lucky you can win the cost of science publishing in and! With these terms that this particular Frontiers journal Series sind wissenschaftliche Open-Access-Fachzeitschriften, die der... ” ( Table 2 ) 30 % women, both authors and desire. This ; at least to the best of my knowledge, are retained. Selecting a journal for publication are important medical audience, waiting for the new journal: Frontiers Foo. Wow, I donât see Frontiers as a reviewer within itself ) setting up a checking stage for gender before! That he understands why I should remove my name associated with them t bad within itself ) in peer-reviewed journals. Madrid, Seattle and Brussels were not included in subsequent analyses in which role was a predatory,... Be misleading in which role was “ other ” or not a webpage of “ predatory ” online or!