Frontiers Media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Frontiers in Neuroscience)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frontiers Media
Frontiers Logo 2.png
Parent company Holtzbrinck Publishing Group
Founded 2007; 11 years ago (2007)
Founder Kamila Markram and Henry Markram[1]
Country of origin Switzerland
Headquarters location Lausanne
Key people Kamila Markram, CEO
Publication types Open access scientific journals
Fiction genres Medicine, life sciences, technology
No. of employees 200[1]
Official website www.frontiersin.org

Frontiers Media SA is an academic publisher of peer-reviewed open access scientific journals[2] currently active in science, technology, and medicine. It was founded in 2007 by a group of neuroscientists,[3] including Henry and Kamila Markram, and later expanded to other academic fields. Frontiers is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Frontiers Media was, controversially, included in Jeffrey Beall's list of potential predatory open access publishers[4] and has been accused of using email spam.[5] The publisher has "a history of badly handled and controversial retractions and publishing decisions".[6] Nevertheless, both COPE and OASPA have retained Frontiers as members after concerns were raised.[7][8]

History[edit]

The first journal published was Frontiers in Neuroscience, which opened for submission as a beta version in 2007.[9] In 2010, Frontiers launched a series of another eleven journals in medicine and science. In February 2012, the Frontiers Research Network was launched,[10] 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.[11]

In February 2013, the Nature Publishing Group (NPG) acquired a controlling interest in Frontiers Media.[12] (NPG is a subsidiary of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.[13])

In April 2013, Frontiers in Psychology retracted a controversial article linking climate change denialism and "conspiracist ideation"; the retraction was itself also controversial and led to the resignations of at least three editors.[14][15][16]

In November 2013 an article in SciELO reported a rejection rate of 20% of manuscripts, compared to Nature which rejected 90% of them, but also noted that Frontiers in Pharmacology of Anti-Cancer Drugs did not fall for the 2013 Science sting.[17]

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.[18][19]

In early September 2014, Frontiers received the ALPSP Gold Award for Innovation in Publishing from the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.[20] In late September, 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.[21] It was eventually decided that the article would not be retracted but instead was reclassified as an opinion piece.[22] Around November 2014 the collaboration between NPG and Frontiers quietly ended when the two groups "made the decision ... to make a clean separation and never to mention again that [Nature Publishing Group] has some kind of involvement in Frontiers."[23]

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".[23]

In October 2015, Frontiers was added to Jeffrey Beall's list of "Potential, possible, or probable" predatory open-access publishers.[4][24][9] The inclusion was met with backlash amongst some researchers.[4] In July 2016 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",[25] and in October of that year Beall reported that reviewers have called the review process "merely for show".[26]

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,[27][28] and Loop soon included a collaboration with ORCID to link and synchronize researcher profile information.[29] The Technical University of Madrid was the first university to link their Loop profile to their institutional website.[30] Also in October 2015 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".[7] Frontiers is a COPE member and one of its employees sits on COPE's council.[7]

In September 2016 Frontiers demanded that the university where Beall worked force him to retract his claims.[31][32]

In November 2016 a paper linking vaccines to autism was retracted from a Frontiers journal.[33] Also in November 2016, a study published analyzing predatory publishing by gathering datasets with and without Frontiers journals.[34]

In 2017, further editors were removed, allegedly for their rejection rate being high.[35] A study published in eLife in November 2017 showed that "women are underrepresented in the peer-review process", and that "editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference".[36] In December 2017 Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky wrote in the magazine Nautilus that the acceptance rate of manuscripts in Frontiers journals was near 90%.[37]

According to 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 that the "system is setup to make it almost impossible to reject papers".[38]

List of journals[edit]

The Frontiers journals use open peer review, where the names of reviewers of accepted articles are made public.[36] As of 2015,[39] 16 of their journals had impact factors, a number that grew to 24 in 2017.[40] In February 2016, the series contained 54 journals,[41] a number that grew to 59 by 2017.[42] The collection of all the journals in the series is sometimes considered a megajournal, as is the BioMed Central series.[41][43][44] Some journals, such as Frontiers in Human Neuroscience[45] or Frontiers in Microbiology[46] are considered megajournals on their own.

  • Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics
  • Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
  • Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
  • Frontiers in Built Environment
  • Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
  • Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
  • Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Chemistry
  • Frontiers in Communication
  • Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Digital Humanities
  • Frontiers in Earth Science
  • Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
  • Frontiers in Education
  • Frontiers in Endocrinology
  • Frontiers in Energy Research
  • Frontiers in Environmental Science
  • Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Genetics
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in ICT
  • Frontiers in Immunology
  • Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Marine Science
  • Frontiers in Materials
  • Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering
  • Frontiers in Medicine
  • Frontiers in Microbiology
  • Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
  • Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Neural Circuits
  • Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
  • Frontiers in Neuroenergetics
  • Frontiers in Neuroengineering
  • Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
  • Frontiers in Neurology
  • Frontiers in Neurorobotics
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Nutrition
  • Frontiers in Oncology
  • Frontiers in Pediatrics
  • Frontiers in Pharmacology
  • Frontiers in Physics
  • Frontiers in Physiology
  • Frontiers in Plant Science
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry
  • Frontiers in Psychology
  • Frontiers in Public Health
  • Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics
  • Frontiers in Robotics and AI
  • Frontiers in Sociology
  • Frontiers in Surgery
  • Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
  • Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Veterinary Science

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b (in French) Philippe Le Bé, "« Avec Frontiers, les travaux des chercheurs sont publiés rapidement et de manière équitable »", Le Temps, published on-line on Sunday 10 April 2016 (page visited on 10 April 2016).
  2. ^ "Members: OA Professional Publishing Organizations". Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). Retrieved 2013-02-04. 
  3. ^ Peter Suber, ed. (2007-10-30). "Open Access News: New series of OA journals in neuroscience". Retrieved 2013-03-04. 
  4. ^ a b c Bloudoff-Indelicato M (2015). "Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers". Nature. 525 (7575). doi:10.1038/526613f. 
  5. ^ Jeffrey Beall (2013-11-05). "I get complaints about Frontiers". Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 2014-05-08. 
  6. ^ Megan Scudellari (2015-06-02). ""[T]hese things can happen in every lab:" Mutant plant paper uprooted after authors correct their own findings". Retraction Watch. 
  7. ^ a b c "COPE statement on Frontiers". COPE. October 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-12.  COPE October 2015 News Index
  8. ^ Claire Redhead (2015-12-24). "Frontiers membership of OASPA". Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. 
  9. ^ a b Schneider, Leonid (28 October 2015). "Is Frontiers a potential predatory publisher?". For Better Science. Retrieved 2017-03-14. 
  10. ^ "Frontiers launches Social Networking for Scientists". Frontiers Media. 9 February 2012. 
  11. ^ "Events". Frontiers Media. Retrieved 2015-10-21. 
  12. ^ P., J. (2013-02-27). "Changing Nature". The Economist. Retrieved 2014-12-17. 
  13. ^ Van Noorden, Richard. "Nature owner merges with publishing giant". Nature News & Comment. Retrieved 2016-01-14. 
  14. ^ "Chief specialty editor resigns from Frontiers in wake of controversial retraction". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2015-10-21. 
  15. ^ Herndon, J. Marvin (2016-06-30). "Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification". Front. Public Health. 4 (139). doi:10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139.  (retracted)
  16. ^ "Frontiers | Retraction: Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification | Environmental Health". Retrieved 2016-08-01. 
  17. ^ Nassi-Calò, Lilian (5 November 2013). "Controversial Article in The Journal "Science" exposes the weaknesses of Peer-Review in a set of Open Access Journals". SciELO in Perspective. 
  18. ^ "Frontiers for Young Minds Launches at USA Science and Engineering Festival". Frontiers. Retrieved 2015-10-21. 
  19. ^ "Young Minds on Scientific American". Scientific American. Retrieved 2015-10-21. 
  20. ^ Page, Benedicte (September 11, 2014). "Frontiers is major winner at ALPSP innovation awards | The Bookseller". The Book Seller. 
  21. ^ "Publisher issues statement of concern about HIV denial paper, launches investigation". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2015-10-21. 
  22. ^ Ferguson, Cat (24 February 2015). "Frontiers lets HIV denial article stand, reclassifies it as "opinion"". Retraction Watch. 
  23. ^ a b Enserink, Martin (20 May 2015). "Open-access publisher sacks 31 editors amid fierce row over independence". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aac4629. 
  24. ^ Beall, Jeffrey. "LIST OF PUBLISHERS". Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 2017-01-12. Retrieved 2015-10-21. 
  25. ^ Beall, Jeffrey (14 July 2016). "More Fringe Science from Borderline Publisher Frontiers". Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 9 August 2016. 
  26. ^ Beall, Jeffrey. "Reviewer to Frontiers: Your Review Process is Merely for Show — I quit". Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 27 November 2016. Retrieved 26 November 2016. 
  27. ^ "Frontiers Loop". Frontiers. Retrieved 2015-10-21. 
  28. ^ "Frontiers launches Loop social network". The Bookseller. Retrieved 2015-10-21. 
  29. ^ "ORCID and Loop new researcher profile system". Orcid. Retrieved 2015-10-26. 
  30. ^ "UPM leads way as first university to integrate Loop". loop. Retrieved 2015-10-26. 
  31. ^ Schneider, Leonid. "Beall-listed Frontiers empire strikes back". For Better Science. Retrieved 26 November 2016. Frontiers disagrees with this librarian’s privately held views, the publisher demands of his academic employer to impose disciplinary measures or coercion against Beall. 
  32. ^ Basken, Paul (12 September 2017). "Why Beall's List Died — and What It Left Unresolved About Open Access". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2017-03-14. 
  33. ^ Chawla, Dalmeet Singh (2016-11-28). "Study linking vaccines to autism pulled following heavy criticism". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2018-03-14. 
  34. ^ Savina, Tatiana; Sterligov, Ivan (24 November 2016). "Prevalence of Potentially Predatory Publishing in Scopus on the Country Level" (PDF). Ural Federal University. Retrieved 15 March 2018. 
  35. ^ "Editor sacked over rejection rate: "not inline with Frontiers core principles"". For Better Science. 2018-03-06. Retrieved 2018-03-07. 
  36. ^ a b Helmer, Markus; Schottdorf, Manuel; Neef, Andreas; Battaglia, Demian (21 March 2017). "Gender bias in scholarly peer review". eLife. 6. doi:10.7554/elife.21718. 
  37. ^ Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan (7 December 2017). "Why Garbage Science Gets Published". Nautilus. 
  38. ^ Kaufman, Allison B.; Kaufman, James C. (2018). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. p. 292. ISBN 9780262037426. 
  39. ^ "Journal Impact Factor 2014". CiteFactor. Retrieved 2015-12-24. 
  40. ^ 2016 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Clarivate Analytics. 2017. 
  41. ^ a b Spezi, Valerie; Wakeling, Simon; Pinfield, Stephen; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Willett, Peter (2017). "Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review". Journal of Documentation. 73 (2): 263–283. doi:10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082. 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. 
  42. ^ "Journals A-Z". Frontiers Media. Retrieved 23 March 2018. 
  43. ^ Domnina, T. N. (2016). "A megajournal as a new type of scientific publication". Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 43 (4): 241–250. doi:10.3103/S0147688216040079. 
  44. ^ Binfield, Peter (2013-12-17). "Novel scholarly journal concepts". In Bartling, S.; Friesike, S. Opening Science. Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 155–163. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_10. ISBN 978-3-319-00025-1. 
  45. ^ Ware, Mark; Mabe, Michael (2015). "The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing" (PDF). International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers. 
  46. ^ Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. American Society for Microbiology. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMID 28951482. 

External links[edit]