Frontiers Media#Controversies

The first journal published was Frontiers in Neuroscience, which opened for submission as a beta version in 2007.{{citation needed|date=February 2024}} In 2010, Frontiers launched a series of another 11 journals in medicine and science. In February 2012, the Frontiers Research Network was launched,{{cite web |url=http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Frontiers_launches_social_networking_for_scientists/18 |title=Frontiers launches Social Networking for Scientists |date=9 February 2012 |publisher=Frontiers Media |access-date=3 May 2012 |archive-date=14 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120614141353/http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Frontiers_launches_social_networking_for_scientists/18 |url-status=live }} a social networking platform for researchers, intended to disseminate the open access articles published in the Frontiers journals, and to provide related conferences, blogs, news, video lectures and job postings.{{cite web |url=http://www.frontiersin.org/events/all_events |title=Events |publisher=Frontiers Media |access-date=2015-10-21 |archive-date=10 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120510161923/http://www.frontiersin.org/events/all_events |url-status=live }}

In February 2013, the Nature Publishing Group (NPG) (now Nature Research) acquired a controlling interest in Frontiers Media,{{cite news |last1=P. |first1=J. |title=Changing Nature |date=2013-02-27 |publisher=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/02/scientific-publishing |access-date=2014-12-17 |archive-date=11 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711195824/https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/02/scientific-publishing |url-status=live }} however collaboration between the Nature Publishing Group and Frontiers ended in 2015.{{cite journal |last1=Enserink |first1=Martin |date=20 May 2015 |title=Open-access publisher sacks 31 editors amid fierce row over independence |journal=Science |doi=10.1126/science.aac4629}}

Frontiers for Young Minds was launched in November 2013 during the Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in collaboration with NPG as a web-based science journal that involves young people in the review of scientific articles with the help of scientists who act as mentors.{{cite web |url=http://www.frontiersin.org/news/Frontiers_for_Young_Minds_Launches_at_USA_Science_and_Engineering_Festival/628 |title=Frontiers for Young Minds Launches at USA Science and Engineering Festival |publisher=Frontiers |access-date=2015-10-21 |archive-date=28 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150628073843/http://www.frontiersin.org/news/Frontiers_for_Young_Minds_Launches_at_USA_Science_and_Engineering_Festival/628 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/frontiers-for-young-minds |title=Young Minds on Scientific American |publisher=Scientific American |access-date=2015-10-21 |archive-date=22 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151022045736/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/frontiers-for-young-minds/ |url-status=live }}

In early September 2014, Frontiers received the ALPSP Gold Award for Innovation in Publishing from the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.{{cite news|last1=Page|first1=Benedicte|title=Frontiers is major winner at ALPSP innovation awards {{!}} The Bookseller|url=https://www.thebookseller.com/news/frontiers-major-winner-alpsp-innovation-awards|work=The Book Seller|date=September 11, 2014|language=en|access-date=23 March 2018|archive-date=23 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180323092757/https://www.thebookseller.com/news/frontiers-major-winner-alpsp-innovation-awards|url-status=live}}

In October 2015, Frontiers (in collaboration with NPG) launched Loop, a research network that is open to be integrated into any publisher's or academic organization's website,{{cite web |url=http://loop.frontiersin.org/about |title=Frontiers Loop |publisher=Frontiers |access-date=2015-10-21 |archive-date=28 May 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528001754/http://loop.frontiersin.org/about |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=http://www.thebookseller.com/news/frontiers-launches-loop-social-network |title=Frontiers launches Loop social network |publisher=The Bookseller |access-date=2015-10-21 |archive-date=20 May 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150520195133/http://www.thebookseller.com/news/frontiers-launches-loop-social-network |url-status=live }} and Loop soon included a collaboration with ORCID to link and synchronize researcher profile information.{{cite web |url=http://orcid.org/blog/2015/10/07/orcid-and-loop-new-researcher-profile-system-integration |title=ORCID and Loop new researcher profile system |publisher=Orcid |access-date=2015-10-26 |date=2015-10-07 |archive-date=10 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151110070825/http://orcid.org/blog/2015/10/07/orcid-and-loop-new-researcher-profile-system-integration? |url-status=live }} The Technical University of Madrid was the first university to link their Loop profile to their institutional website.{{cite web |url=http://blog.loop.frontiersin.org/2015/07/07/upm-leads-way-as-first-university-to-integrate-loop/ |title=UPM leads way as first university to integrate Loop |publisher=loop |access-date=2015-10-26 |date=2015-07-07 |archive-date=7 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150907035342/http://blog.loop.frontiersin.org/2015/07/07/upm-leads-way-as-first-university-to-integrate-loop/ |url-status=live }}

In 2019, Frontiers joined the Initiative for Open Citations.{{cite web |url=https://i4oc.org/ |title=Initiative for Open Citations |access-date=2019-09-01 |archive-date=7 April 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170407054315/https://i4oc.org/ |url-status=live }}

In May 2020, Frontiers Media launched its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant software to external editors.{{cite news |date=November 23, 2020 |title=Do You Have a Conflict of Interest? This Robotic Assistant May Find It First |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/science/conflict-of-interest-ai.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=January 4, 2021 |archive-date=7 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210107220045/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/science/conflict-of-interest-ai.html |url-status=live }} The software helps identify conflicts of interest and plagiarism, assesses manuscript and peer review quality, and recommends editors and reviewers,{{cite news |date=July 27, 2020 |title=Peer Review of Scholarly Research Gets an AI Boost |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/peer-review-of-scholarly-research-gets-an-ai-boost |work=IEEE Spectrum |access-date=January 4, 2021 |archive-date=8 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108095633/https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/artificial-intelligence/peer-review-of-scholarly-research-gets-an-ai-boost |url-status=live }} although the software does not flag all forms of conflict of interest, such as undisclosed funding sources or affiliations.

In 2022, a group of publishers including Frontiers Media joined the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers' STM Integrity Hub, an initiative to provide publishers with tools to combat journal article submissions with integrity issues from research paper mills.{{cite news |title=Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science |last=Else |first=Holly |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04245-8 |work=Nature |date=December 2, 2022 |access-date=December 8, 2022 |archive-date=20 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221220185203/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04245-8 |url-status=live }}

The Frontiers journals use open peer review, where the names of reviewers of accepted articles are made public.{{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|pmid=28322725|pmc=5360442 |doi-access=free }}

In February 2016, the company published 54 journals,{{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 |issue=2 |pages=263–283 |doi=10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082 |quote=Series, such as the BMC Series ... or Frontiers in [...] 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. |year=2017 |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/105279/8/JD-06-2016-0082.pdf |access-date=20 February 2019 |archive-date=27 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181127215343/http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/105279/8/JD-06-2016-0082.pdf |url-status=live }} a number that grew to over 230 journals by 2024.{{cite web|title=Journals A-Z|url=https://www.frontiersin.org/about/journals-a-z|publisher=Frontiers Media|access-date=2 June 2020|archive-date=25 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200525150824/https://www.frontiersin.org/about/journals-a-z|url-status=live}} The collection of all the journals in the series is sometimes considered a megajournal, as is the BioMed Central series.{{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 |issue=4 |year=2016 |pages=241–250 |doi=10.3103/S0147688216040079|s2cid=17769019 }}{{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}} Some journals, such as Frontiers in Human Neuroscience{{cite web |first1=Mark |last1=Ware |first2=Michael |last2=Mabe |year=2015 |title=The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing |website=International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers |url=https://www.stm-assoc.org/wp-content/themes/stm2014/docs.php?name=2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf |access-date=23 March 2018 |archive-date=30 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200630010435/https://www.stm-assoc.org/wp-content/themes/stm2014/docs.php?name=2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf |url-status=live }} or Frontiers in Microbiology{{cite journal|first1=Patrick D. |last1=Schloss |first2=Mark |last2=Johnston |first3=Arturo |last3=Casadevall |title=Support science by publishing in scientific society journals |journal=mBio |date=2017-09-26 |volume=8 |issue=5 |page=e01633{{hyphen}}17 |doi=10.1128/mBio.01633-17|pmid=28951482 |pmc=5615203 }} are considered megajournals on their own. Some journals published by Frontiers are:

{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|

• Frontiers in Aging
• Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Agronomy
• Frontiers in Allergy
• Frontiers in Analytical Science
• Frontiers in Animal Science
• Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics
• Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
• Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
• Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Big Data
• Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
• Frontiers in Bioinformatics
• Frontiers in Biomaterials Science
• Frontiers in Bird Science
• Frontiers in Blockchain
• Frontiers in Built Environment
• Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
• Frontiers in Catalysis
• Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
• Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
• Frontiers in Chemical Engineering
• Frontiers in Chemistry
• Frontiers in Climate
• Frontiers in Clinical Diabetes and Healthcare
• Frontiers in Communication
• Frontiers in Communications and Networks
• Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Computer Science
• Frontiers in Conservation Science
• Frontiers in Control Engineering
• Frontiers in Dementia
• Frontiers in Dental Medicine
• Frontiers in Digital Health
• Frontiers in Digital Humanities
• Frontiers in Drug Delivery
• Frontiers in Drug Discovery
• Frontiers in Earth Science
• Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
• Frontiers in Education
• Frontiers in Electronic Materials
• Frontiers in Electronics
• Frontiers in Endocrinology
• Frontiers in Energy Research
• Frontiers in Environmental Chemistry
• Frontiers in Environmental Health
• Frontiers in Environmental Science
• Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Food Science and Technology
• Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
• Frontiers in Freshwater Science
• Frontiers in Fungal Biology
• Frontiers in Future Transportation
• Frontiers in Gastroenterology
• Frontiers in Genetics
• Frontiers in Genome Editing
• Frontiers in Geochemistry
• Frontiers in Global Women's Health
• Frontiers in Hematology
• Frontiers in Health Services
• Frontiers in Human Dynamics
• Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
• Frontiers in ICT
• Frontiers in Immunology
• Frontiers in Insect Science
• Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
• Frontiers in International Journal of Public Health
• Frontiers in Manufacturing Technology
• Frontiers in Marine Science
• Frontiers in Materials
• Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering
• Frontiers in Medical Technology
• Frontiers in Medicine
• Frontiers in Microbiology
• Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
• Frontiers in Molecular Medicine
• Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Nanotechnology
• Frontiers in Network Physiology
• Frontiers in Neural Circuits
• Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
• Frontiers in Neuroenergetics
• Frontiers in Neuroengineering
• Frontiers in Neuroergonomics
• Frontiers in Neuroimaging
• Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
• Frontiers in Neurology
• Frontiers in Neurorobotics
• Frontiers in Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Nuclear Medicine
• Frontiers in Nutrition
• Frontiers in Oncology
• Frontiers in Ophthalmology
• Frontiers in Oral Health
• Frontiers in Pain Research
• Frontiers in Pediatrics
• Frontiers in Pharmacology
• Frontiers in Photonics
• Frontiers in Physics
• Frontiers in Physiology
• Frontiers in Plant Science
• Frontiers in Political Science
• Frontiers in Psychiatry
• Frontiers in Psychology
• Frontiers in Public Health
• Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology
• Frontiers in Radiology
• Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences
• Frontiers in Remote Sensing
• Frontiers in Reproductive Health
• Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics
• Frontiers in Robotics and AI
• Frontiers in Science
• Frontiers in Sensors
• Frontiers in Signal Processing
• Frontiers in Sociology
• Frontiers in Soil Science
• Frontiers in Space Technologies
• Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
• Frontiers in Surgery
• Frontiers in Sustainability
• Frontiers in Sustainable Agrifood Systems
• Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
• Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
• Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Systems Biology
• Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Thermal Engineering
• Frontiers in Toxicology
• Frontiers in Transplantation
• Frontiers in Tropical Diseases
• Frontiers in Tuberculosis
• Frontiers in Urology
• Frontiers in Veterinary Science
• Frontiers in Virology
• Frontiers in Virtual Reality
• Frontiers in Water

}}

as well as

{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|

• Acta Biochimica Polonica
• Acta Virologica
• Advances in Drug and Alcohol Research
• Aerospace Research Communications
• British Journal of Biomedical Science
• Dystonia
• Earth Science, Systems and Society
• European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy
• Frontiers for Young Minds
• Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery
• Journal of Cutaneous Immunology and Allergy
• Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Oncology Reviews
• Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice
• Pathology & Oncology Research
• Public Health Reviews
• Spanish Journal of Soil Science
• Transplant International

}}

The National Publication Committee of Norway has assigned Frontiers Media an institutional-level rating of "level 0" in the Norwegian Scientific Index since 2018, indicating that the publisher is "not academic",{{cite web |url=https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26841&bibsys=false |title=Frontiers |author= |website=Norwegian Scientific Index |access-date=9 May 2021 |archive-date=5 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230405015523/https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26841&bibsys=false |url-status=live }} however individual Frontiers journals have separate journal-level ratings. As of 2022, 96 Frontiers journals are listed in the Norwegian Scientific Index, of which 2 have a rating of "level 2" (top 20% of all journals in their field), over 88 have a rating of "level 1" (standard academic), 1 has a rating of level X (possibly predatory), and 5 have a rating of "level 0" (not academic).

As of 2022, Frontiers publishes over 185 academic journals, including 48 journals indexed within the Science Citation Index Expanded, and 4 journals indexed within the Social Sciences Citation Index,{{Cite web|title=Web of Science Master Journal List |url=https://mjl.clarivate.com/ |access-date=2022-11-23 |website=Web of Science Group |language=en |archive-date=20 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200620100246/https://mjl.clarivate.com/ |url-status=live }} with a total of 51 journals ranked with an impact factor.{{Cite web |title=Frontiers {{!}} Frontiers' Impact |url=https://www.frontiersin.org/about/impact |access-date=2022-11-23 |website=www.frontiersin.org |language=en |archive-date=23 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221123215049/https://www.frontiersin.org/about/impact |url-status=live }} Furthermore, as of 2021, 9 Frontiers Media journals have been selected for inclusion in MEDLINE.{{Cite web|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/?term=currentlyindexed%5BAll+Fields%5D+AND+currentlyindexedelectronic%5BAll+Fields%5D+AND+Frontiers%5Bpubl%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch|title=currentlyindexed[All Fields] AND currentlyindexedelectronic[All Fields - NLM Catalog - NCBI|website=www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|access-date=8 June 2023|archive-date=17 February 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217014241/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/?term=currentlyindexed%5BAll+Fields%5D+AND+currentlyindexedelectronic%5BAll+Fields%5D+AND+Frontiers%5Bpubl%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch|url-status=live}}

In broader databases, Frontiers has over 200 journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ),{{cite web |title=Journals |url=https://doaj.org/search/journals?ref=toc&source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22terms%22%3A%7B%22bibjson.publisher.name.exact%22%3A%5B%22Frontiers%20Media%20S.A.%22%5D%7D%7D%2C%7B%22query_string%22%3A%7B%22query%22%3A%22frontiers%22%2C%22default_operator%22%3A%22AND%22%2C%22default_field%22%3A%22bibjson.publisher.name%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22track_total_hits%22%3Atrue%7D |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217014240/https://doaj.org/search/journals?ref=toc&source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22terms%22%3A%7B%22bibjson.publisher.name.exact%22%3A%5B%22Frontiers%20Media%20S.A.%22%5D%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.has_seal.exact%22%3A%22Yes%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%7D |archive-date=17 February 2024 |access-date=May 25, 2021 |work=Directory of Open Access Journals}} over 60 journals listed in PubMed Central (PMC),{{cite web |title=PMC Journals |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/?filter=t2&titles=current&search=journals |work=PubMed Central |access-date=May 27, 2021 |archive-date=10 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220410225335/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/?filter=t2&titles=current&search=journals |url-status=live }} and over 110 journals listed in Scopus.{{cite web |title=Scopus Sources |url=https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri |work=Scopus |access-date=May 27, 2021 |archive-date=15 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210515104235/https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri |url-status=live }}

Frontiers journals are included in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); the publisher has been on DOAJ's advisory board & council since 2019.{{cite web |title=Directory of Open Access Journals – DOAJ |url=https://doaj.org/about/advisory-board-council/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231212233159/https://doaj.org/about/advisory-board-council/ |archive-date=12 December 2023 |access-date=12 December 2023}} Frontiers is also a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA); a participating publisher and supporter of the Initiative for Open Citations; a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); and a member of the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM). {{as of|2023|post=,}} Frontiers publishes over 220 academic journals, and following the 2023 release of the Web of Science Group's Journal Citation Reports (JCR 2022) and Scopus' CiteScore, 72 of the journals published by Frontiers have a Journal Impact Factor and 79 journals have a CiteScore.{{cite web |title=Impact — Frontiers Progress Report 2022 |url=https://progressreport.frontiersin.org/impact |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231212233159/https://progressreport.frontiersin.org/impact |archive-date=12 December 2023 |access-date=12 December 2023}}

In May 2015, Frontiers Media removed the entire editorial boards of Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine after editors complained that Frontiers Media staff were "interfering with editorial decisions and violating core principles of medical publishing". In total 31 editors were removed. Following this incident, Nature Publishing Group ended its collaboration with Frontiers with the intent "never to mention again that Nature Publishing Group has some kind of involvement in Frontiers."

In June 2015, Retraction Watch referred to the publisher as one with "a history of badly handled and controversial retractions and publishing decisions".{{cite web |url=http://retractionwatch.com/2015/06/02/mutant-plant-paper-uprooted-after-authors-correct-their-own-findings/ |title="[T]hese things can happen in every lab:" Mutant plant paper uprooted after authors correct their own findings |author=Megan Scudellari |date=2015-06-02 |website=Retraction Watch |access-date=5 December 2015 |archive-date=8 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208064810/http://retractionwatch.com/2015/06/02/mutant-plant-paper-uprooted-after-authors-correct-their-own-findings/ |url-status=live }}

According to researchers referenced in a 2015 blog post quoted by Allison and James Kaufman in the 2018 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 the "system is setup to make it almost impossible to reject papers".{{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.com/books?id=dwFKDwAAQBAJ&q=Frontiers&pg=PA304|page=292|quote=Frontiers has used an in-house journal management software that does not give reviewers the option to recommend the rejection of manuscripts they have reviewed. The publisher's systems are set up to make it almost impossible to reject papers, perhaps to keep potential revenue from jumping to a rival publisher. Increasingly, journal management software is designed to optimize a publisher's revenue.|access-date=17 October 2020|archive-date=17 February 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217014340/https://books.google.com/books?id=dwFKDwAAQBAJ&q=Frontiers&pg=PA304#v=snippet&q=Frontiers&f=false|url-status=live}} However, as of 2022, Frontiers maintains that reviewers are given the option to reject papers with specific recommendations.{{cite web |url=https://www.frontiersin.org/Design/pdf/RE_Guidelines.pdf |title="Review Editor Guidelines" |date=2023-04-04 |website=Frontiers Media SA |access-date=14 April 2023 |archive-date=14 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230414221159/https://www.frontiersin.org/Design/pdf/RE_Guidelines.pdf |url-status=live }}

In 2017, further editors were removed, allegedly for their rejection rate being high.{{citation needed|date=August 2022}} In December 2017, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch wrote in the magazine Nautilus that the acceptance rate of manuscripts in Frontiers journals was reported to be near 90%.{{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 |access-date=23 March 2018 |archive-date=16 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180316170406/http://nautil.us/issue/55/trust/why-garbage-science-gets-published |url-status=live }}

In 2022, the editors of a special issue with the online journal Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics voiced their concerns about the editorial practices at Frontiers, including flaws in the peer review process, unwillingness to discuss these concerns, and forbidding the editors from writing about their concerns in the editorial of the special issue.{{Cite web |title=Reflections on guest editing a Frontiers journal |url=https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/reflections-on-guest-editing-a-frontiers-journal |access-date=2022-11-14 |website=www.leidenmadtrics.nl |date=31 October 2022 |language=en |archive-date=14 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113616/https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/reflections-on-guest-editing-a-frontiers-journal |url-status=live }}

In January 2023, Zhejiang Gongshang University ({{Lang|zh|浙江工商大学|italic=no}}) in Hangzhou, China, announced it would no longer include articles published in Hindawi, MDPI, and Frontiers journals when evaluating researcher performance.{{Cite web |last=ForeignFriends |title=MDPI, Frontiers & Hindawi are blacklisted by a university |url=http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5OTY5OTU0Nw==&mid=2454145404&idx=1&sn=e4c8a9cb19c88c120946a4d65403cb0e&chksm=b0849c4887f3155e23aad0563c372f92a6cfdbc8e7fa828ccfc54ec6ccde229cee15e6a49247#rd |access-date=2023-01-27 |website=Weixin Official Accounts Platform |archive-date=27 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127072513/https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5OTY5OTU0Nw==&mid=2454145404&idx=1&sn=e4c8a9cb19c88c120946a4d65403cb0e&chksm=b0849c4887f3155e23aad0563c372f92a6cfdbc8e7fa828ccfc54ec6ccde229cee15e6a49247#rd |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |title=突发：一高校将Frontiers、MDPI、Hindawi三大OA出版社旗下所有期刊纳入黑名单！_社会科学_教育部_学科 |url=https://www.sohu.com/a/www.sohu.com/a/627410143_121124212 |access-date=2023-01-27 |website=www.sohu.com |archive-date=17 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217014258/https://www.sohu.com/ |url-status=live }}

Also in January 2023, Inria released recommendations on "grey-zone publishers", namely Frontiers and MDPI, highlighting stark differences in editorial process between titles owned by Frontiers and other journals in the fields of Computer Science and Mathematics, and urging "extreme vigilance about the quality of articles published by Frontiers."{{Cite journal |title=Recommendations on "Grey-Zone Publishers" |url=https://inria.hal.science/hal-04201298v1 | date=2023-01-25|journal=INRIA |pages=1–3 |last1=Blanqui |first1=Frédéric |last2=Canteaut |first2=Anne |last3=Jong |first3=Hidde De |last4=Imperiale |first4=Sébastien |last5=Mitton |first5=Nathalie |last6=Pallez |first6=Guillaume |last7=Pennec |first7=Xavier |last8=Rival |first8=Xavier |last9=Thirion |first9=Bertrand }}

In 2024, a study highlighted how MDPI, Frontiers, and Hindawi journals had massively increased their publishing of special issue articles, associated with very rapid article acceptances. This has raised concerns over the quality of the Frontiers peer review process.{{Cite journal |last1=Hanson |first1=Mark A. |last2=Barreiro |first2=Pablo Gómez |last3=Crosetto |first3=Paolo |last4=Brockington |first4=Dan |date=2024-11-08 |title=The strain on scientific publishing |url=https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/doi/10.1162/qss_a_00327/124269/The-strain-on-scientific-publishing |journal=Quantitative Science Studies |volume=5 |issue=4 |pages=823–843 |doi=10.1162/qss_a_00327 |issn=2641-3337|arxiv=2309.15884 }}

In October 2015, Frontiers was added to Beall's List of "Potential, possible, or probable" predatory open-access publishers.{{cite journal |title=Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers| journal=Nature |author=Bloudoff-Indelicato M |year=2015 |volume=525 |issue=7575 | pages=613 |doi=10.1038/526613f|bibcode=2015Natur.526..613B|doi-access=free }}{{cite web |url=http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ |title=LIST OF PUBLISHERS |work=Scholarly Open Access |last1=Beall |first1=Jeffrey |author-link=Jeffrey Beall |access-date=2015-10-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170112125427/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/|archive-date=2017-01-12}} The inclusion was met with backlash among some researchers. Daniël Lakens, researcher at the Eindhoven University of Technology, said "articles people have published in Frontiers are no longer judged based on their own quality, but are now seen as less valuable because Frontiers is on Beall's list" and that "[h]aving a single influential individual cast doubt on such a huge journal feels very unfair".{{Cite journal|last=Bloudoff-Indelicato|first=Mollie|date=October 2015|title=Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=526|issue=7575|pages=613|doi=10.1038/526613f|bibcode=2015Natur.526..613B|s2cid=4391970|issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free}} At the time, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) said that "there have been vigorous discussions about, and some editors are uncomfortable with, the editorial processes at Frontiers" but that "the processes are declared clearly on the publisher's site and we do not believe there is any attempt to deceive either editors or authors about these processes".{{cite web |url=http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-frontiers |title=COPE statement on Frontiers |work=COPE |date=October 2015 |access-date=2015-11-12 |archive-date=23 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151123204109/http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-frontiers |url-status=live }} [https://publicationethics.org/newsevents/201510 COPE October 2015 News Index] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170712122524/https://publicationethics.org/newsevents/201510 |date=12 July 2017 }} Frontiers was a member of COPE; the statement concluded that "we have no concerns about Frontiers being a COPE member and are happy to work with them". For transparency, COPE added that one of Frontiers' employees, Mirjam Curno, sits on COPE's council, although that employee was not involved in the statement.

In July 2016 the maintainer of Beall's List, Jeff Beall, recommended that academics not publish their work in Frontiers journals, stating "the fringe science published in Frontiers journals stigmatizes the honest research submitted and published there",{{cite news|last1=Beall|first1=Jeffrey|date=14 July 2016|title=More Fringe Science from Borderline Publisher Frontiers|work=Scholarly Open Access|url=https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/07/14/more-fringe-science-from-borderline-publisher-frontiers/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160809165213/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/07/14/more-fringe-science-from-borderline-publisher-frontiers/|archive-date=9 August 2016}} and in October of that year Beall reported that reviewers have called the review process "merely for show".{{cite web|last1=Beall|first1=Jeffrey|title=Reviewer to Frontiers: Your Review Process is Merely for Show — I quit|url=https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/27/reviewer-to-frontiers-your-review-process-is-merely-for-show-i-quit/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161127152107/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/27/reviewer-to-frontiers-your-review-process-is-merely-for-show-i-quit/|archive-date=27 November 2016|access-date=26 November 2016|website=Scholarly Open Access}}

In September 2016, Frontiers demanded that the university where Beall worked force him to retract his claims.{{cite web|last1=Schneider|first1=Leonid|title=Beall-listed Frontiers empire strikes back|url=https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/beall-listed-frontiers-empire-strikes-back/|website=For Better Science|access-date=26 November 2016|quote=Frontiers disagrees with this librarian's privately held views, the publisher demands of his academic employer to impose disciplinary measures or coercion against Beall.|date=2016-09-14|archive-date=27 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161127085127/https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/beall-listed-frontiers-empire-strikes-back/|url-status=live}}{{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|archive-date=15 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315070545/https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Beall-s-List-Died-/241171|url-status=live}} Beall deleted his blacklist in January 2017.{{cite journal|last=Swauger|first=Shea|date=2017-12-01|title=Open access, power, and privilege: A response to "What I learned from predatory publishing"|journal=College & Research Libraries News|volume=78|issue=11|pages=603–606|doi=10.5860/crln.78.11.603|doi-access=free}} Pressure by Frontiers was reported to be a large factor in the controversial shutdown of Beall's List.

In April 2013, Frontiers in Psychology retracted a controversial article linking climate change denialism and "conspiracist ideation";{{cite journal|last1=Herndon|first1=J. Marvin|title=Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification|journal=Frontiers in Public Health|date=2016-06-30|volume=4|issue=139|pages=139|doi=10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139|pmid=27433467|pmc=4927569|doi-access=free}}{{Retracted|doi=10.3389/fpubh.2016.00156|doi-access=free|pmid=27453892|http://retractionwatch.com/2016/07/15/controversial-chemtrails-paper-flagged-by-journal/ Retraction Watch|http://retractionwatch.com/2016/07/18/author-loses-2nd-paper-on-supposed-dangers-of-chemtrails/ Retraction Watch|intentional=yes}}{{irrelevant citation|{{subst:November 2023}}|reason=Also a retracted article from Frontiers, but this is not the article the text discusses.|date=November 2023}} the retraction was itself also controversial and led to the resignations of at least three editors.{{cite web |url=http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/09/chief-specialty-editor-resigns-from-frontiers-in-wake-of-controversial-retraction/ |title=Chief specialty editor resigns from Frontiers in wake of controversial retraction |work=Retraction Watch |access-date=2015-10-21 |date=2014-04-09 |archive-date=6 October 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006180626/http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/09/chief-specialty-editor-resigns-from-frontiers-in-wake-of-controversial-retraction/ |url-status=live }}

In late September 2014, Frontiers in Public Health published a controversial article that supported HIV denialism; three days later the publisher issued a statement of concern and announced an investigation into the review process of the article.{{cite web |url=http://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/26/publisher-issues-statement-of-concern-about-hiv-denial-paper-launches-investigation/ |title=Publisher issues statement of concern about HIV denial paper, launches investigation |work=Retraction Watch |access-date=2015-10-21 |date=2014-09-26 |archive-date=29 September 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140929090928/http://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/26/publisher-issues-statement-of-concern-about-hiv-denial-paper-launches-investigation/ |url-status=live }} It was eventually decided that the article would not be retracted but instead was reclassified as an opinion piece.{{cite web|last=Ferguson|first=Cat|title=Frontiers lets HIV denial article stand, reclassifies it as "opinion"|url=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/02/24/frontiers-lets-hiv-denier-article-stand-reclassifies-it-as-opinion/|website=Retraction Watch|date=24 February 2015|access-date=23 March 2018|archive-date=16 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180316023247/https://retractionwatch.com/2015/02/24/frontiers-lets-hiv-denier-article-stand-reclassifies-it-as-opinion/|url-status=live}} It has since been retracted.{{cite journal |title=Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent|year=2014|doi=10.3389/fpubh.2014.00154|pmid=25695040|last1=Goodson|first1=P.|journal=Frontiers in Public Health|volume=2|page=154|pmc=4172096|doi-access=free}}{{Retracted|doi=10.3389/fpubh.2019.00334|doi-access=free|pmid=31720286|http://retractionwatch.com/2019/10/25/misguided-and-ineffectual-publisher-offers-mea-culpa-in-retraction-of-paper-questioning-link-between-hiv-and-aids/ Retraction Watch|intentional=yes}}

In November 2016, a paper in Frontiers in Public Health linking vaccines to autism was provisionally-accepted, then retracted. Public criticism noted the paper relied on flawed methodology for reliable results, basing its conclusions only on an online questionnaire, filled in by 415 mothers of school children who self-reported whether their children had neurodevelopmental disorders, and their vaccination status.{{cite web |last1=Chawla |first1=Dalmeet Singh |url=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/study-linking-vaccines-autism-pulled-frontiers-following-heavy-criticism/ |title=Study linking vaccines to autism pulled following heavy criticism |website=Retraction Watch |date=2016-11-28 |access-date=2018-03-14 |archive-date=16 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180316022947/https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/study-linking-vaccines-autism-pulled-frontiers-following-heavy-criticism/ |url-status=live }}

In 2021, a provisionally accepted controversial paper in Frontiers in Pharmacology on COVID-19 and the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin was ultimately rejected by the editors as it contained "unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal's editorial policies". This drew anger from the authors of the paper, who called the move "censorship".{{cite web |last1=Offord |first1=Catherine |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505 |title=Frontiers Removes Controversial Ivermectin Paper Pre-Publication |website=TheScientist |date=2021-03-28 |access-date=2018-03-02 |archive-date=10 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220110025414/https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505 |url-status=live }} Retraction Watch noted that this was not the first time Frontiers provisionally accepted and then rejected a controversial paper.{{cite web |url=https://retractionwatch.com/2021/03/06/weekend-reads-an-apology-from-jama-a-call-to-retract-covid-19-ayurveda-paper-the-treasure-that-was-a-hoax/#more-121671 |title=Weekend reads: An apology from JAMA; a call to retract COVID-19 ayurveda paper; the treasure that was a hoax |website=Retraction Watch |date=2016-11-28 |access-date=2021-03-06 |archive-date=6 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210306135750/https://retractionwatch.com/2021/03/06/weekend-reads-an-apology-from-jama-a-call-to-retract-covid-19-ayurveda-paper-the-treasure-that-was-a-hoax/#more-121671 |url-status=live }}

A study published in Frontiers in Virology in February 2022 said that Moderna had patented a 19 nucleotide genetic sequence uniquely matching a part of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein three years prior to the pandemic, arguing it was evidence that the virus was manufactured as part of a lab leak conspiracy.{{cite web |last1=Zhang |first1=Legu |last2=Echols |first2=William |date=April 1, 2022 |title=Made by Moderna? China Spreads Yet Another Debunked COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-moderna-vaccine-covid-conspiracy/6743336.html |access-date=September 16, 2024 |website=Polygraph.info |publisher=Voice of America|archive-date=September 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240916100727/https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-moderna-vaccine-covid-conspiracy/6743336.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |last=Cercone |first=Jeff |date=March 14, 2022 |title=No, study doesn't prove Moderna 'created' COVID-19 |url=https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/24/blog-posting/no-study-doesnt-prove-moderna-created-covid-19/ |access-date=2022-08-10 |website=PolitiFact |language=en-US |archive-date=10 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220810093340/https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/24/blog-posting/no-study-doesnt-prove-moderna-created-covid-19/ |url-status=live }} The study has been widely derided for its misunderstanding of statistical likelihood, particularly as the 19 nucleotide sequence is not unique to SARS-CoV-2, and is also found in organisms like bacteria and birds.{{Cite web |date=March 2, 2022 |first=Flora |last=Teoh |title=Short identical gene sequence in SARS-CoV-2 and a gene sequence patented by Moderna can be found in other organisms; not evidence that virus was engineered |url=https://science.feedback.org/review/short-identical-gene-sequence-sars-cov-2-and-gene-sequence-patented-moderna-found-in-other-organisms-not-evidence-virus-engineered-daily-mail/ |access-date=16 September 2024 |website=Science Feedback |publisher=Health Feedback |language=en-US |archive-date=16 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240916100024/https://science.feedback.org/review/short-identical-gene-sequence-sars-cov-2-and-gene-sequence-patented-moderna-found-in-other-organisms-not-evidence-virus-engineered-daily-mail/ |url-status=live }} Craig Wilen, an immunobiology professor of the Yale School of Medicine, likened the study to "complete garbage" and a "conspiracy theory" rather than legitimate research.{{Cite web |last=Savage |first=Claire |date=2022-03-24 |title=Scientific paper does not prove Moderna 'created' coronavirus |url=https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.326Q8PG |access-date=2022-08-10 |website=Agence France-Presse |language=en |archive-date=10 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220810093340/https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.326Q8PG |url-status=live }}

File:AI generated figure published in a Frontiers journal.png

A now-retracted 2024 paper published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology{{cite journal |title=Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway |journal=Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology |date=2024 |doi=10.3389/fcell.2023.1339390|doi-access=free |last1=Guo |first1=Xinyu |last2=Dong |first2=Liang |last3=Hao |first3=Dingjun |volume=11 }}{{Retracted|doi=10.3389/fcell.2024.1386861|doi-access=free|https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/17/weekend-reads-that-paper-yes-that-one-is-retracted-china-reviewing-17000-retractions-a-columbia-surgeon-and-flawed-data/ Retraction Watch|intentional=yes}} was criticized for having figures AI generated with Midjourney, described as featuring "garbled text and a wildly incorrect diagram of a rat penis".{{Cite web |last=Mole |first=Beth |date=2024-02-15 |title=Scientists aghast at bizarre AI rat with huge genitals in peer-reviewed article |url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai-rat-with-huge-genitals-in-peer-reviewed-article/ |access-date=2024-02-17 |website=Ars Technica |language=en-us |archive-date=16 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240216132612/https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai-rat-with-huge-genitals-in-peer-reviewed-article/ |url-status=live }} Microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant Elisabeth Bik described it as being "a sad example of how scientific journals, editors, and peer reviewers can be naive—or possibly even in the loop—in terms of accepting and publishing AI-generated crap".{{cite web |last=Pearson |first=Jordan |date=February 15, 2024 |title=Scientific Journal Publishes AI-Generated Rat with Gigantic Penis In Worrying Incident |publisher=Vice Media |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/scientific-journal-frontiers-publishes-ai-generated-rat-with-gigantic-penis-in-worrying-incident/ |access-date=February 15, 2024 |archive-date=15 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240215212053/https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy3jbz/scientific-journal-frontiers-publishes-ai-generated-rat-with-gigantic-penis-in-worrying-incident |url-status=live }}

{{Reflist|2}}

{{Commons category|Media from Frontiers journals}}

• {{Official website|http://www.frontiersin.org/}}

{{Portal bar|Science|Switzerland}}

Category:Publishing companies established in 2007

Category:Swiss companies established in 2007

Category:Open access publishers