Free Dissemination
Each Frontiers article is a landmark of the highest possible quality, due to true collaborative interactions between Authors and the highest quality Reviewers. Frontiers recognizes the immense importance of the potential impact of published research on future research and society and therefore does not support superficial review, light review or no review publishing models. Research knowledge must be validated by peers before entering the stream of knowledge that will eventually reach the public and shape society. Frontiers therefore supports the highest quality reviews and operates according to the novel Frontiers Academic Model that applies a rigorous, but unbiased Frontiers Review System , a separated online, automated and global Frontiers Evaluation System and Frontiers Recognition System to reward the most outstanding research selected by the entire community.

Frontiers promotes a fair, constructive and unbiased review process by

• an automated Referee selection process (under development)
• a new mandate for Referees restricted to objective judgments ensuring the correctness of the experiments
• a real-time interactive review forum
• the right of an Author to initiate an arbitration process in the case of a dispute
• an immediate paper pending publication to secure Author discoveries during the review process
  

Referee Mandate
Frontiers promotes a strict separation between Review and Evaluation . Referees can only make a strong stance on objective issues and can only reject research papers based on objective errors. The mandate for Referees is to ensure that the experiments are valid, the results are flawless and the quality is as high as possible, whereas the community as a whole determines the significance and importance of the research.

High Quality Review
Frontiers strives to provide Authors with the highest quality review service by recruiting outstanding scientist as Review Editors for the editorial boards of the Frontiers Specialty Journals who work constructively and collaboratively with the Authors to bring the paper to its best quality.

Open Review
A major objective for Frontiers is to remove bias from the review system. One of the core factors that support biased reviews is the invisible screen between the Authors and Referees. In the Frontiers system the Referee remains anonymous only during the review period. After the review, the screen is lifted and the Referees are disclosed and acknowledged on the published paper. This system achieves the effect of ensuring that Authors address all issues raised by Referees seriously, protects Referees in the event that they wish to withdraw from the review process, and ensures constructive review. Standardized Review
Frontiers provides a review template to standardize and focus reviews on objective issues. This allows equal, fair, rapid, comprehensive and comparable assessment of research.

Real-Time Interactive Review Forum
Frontiers introduces the first real-time interactive review forum to scientific publishing. The Frontiers review consists of two stages:

1. Independent Review
During the independent review, the Reviewers assess the paper independently from each other and the Authors, guided by a standardized review template.

2. Interactive Review
During the interactive review, Authors and Reviewers can interact with each other through comments, in real-time, much like an internet discussion group. The Specialty Associate and Chief Editors can enter the site and oversee the review process and can directly contact Referees or Authors to handle an issue. The Associate Editor makes sure that the review process occurs timely and is in agreement with the Frontiers Rules and Regulations. The review is finished once the review comments are addressed to the Reviewers' satisfaction.

Arbitrations
The interactive review forum should allow Referees to converge on objective errors, but should a dispute arise that threatens to reject the paper because of objective errors, then the Author may trigger arbitration. Initially, the Associate Editor of a particular Specialty Journal will arbitrate and involve all Referees in a discussion to resolve the problem. In case the problems cannot be solved, the Specialty Chief Editor is alerted and can bring in additional Referees or Associate Editors for consultation on more specialized topics. A paper can be rejected if the arbitration rules that the objective error stands. Referees may also trigger arbitration if they feel that the Author is unwilling or reluctant to make the required changes. A Referee may also withdraw from the review process if he/she disagrees with the other Referees and the arbitration rulings. In the case of a Referee withdrawal, the Referees' identity remains anonymous and undisclosed. A Referee withdrawal requires the recruitment of a new Referee, which slows the review process and Authors therefore need to co-operate as far as possible to address the concerns of Referees.

Frontiers Commentaries
Referees are invited to write a Frontiers Commentary, which is a one-page summary of the paper co-authored by all participating Referees. These commentaries are referenced and citable and are major incentive for Referees because the current trend is for readers to read more meta-papers before going to the deeper original studies.

Advantages of being a Frontiers Review Editor

• Real-time interaction with Authors and Reviewers
• Acknowledgement in Frontiers publications
• Membership on editorial boards of Frontiers journals
• Awards for successful work
• Free access to many advanced services in Frontiers
• Discounts for optional services offered by Frontiers
• Possibility for Associate Editor promotion
  

Value of the Frontiers Review for Authors

• Standardized review template
• Comprehensive independent review
• Constructive interactive review
• Review Editor commentary highlighting the article