Open access and the Science “sting”

Open Letter to the Frontiers Editorial Boards On October 4, Science magazine published a news item describing the submission of a fake research article to more than 250 open-access journals, resulting in 60% of journals accepting the article after virtually no peer review. The study aimed at representing a “first global snapshot of peer review across open-access”: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full The fake article was also submitted to Frontiers. In our case, the Specialty Chief Editor of the relevant section rejected the article the same day it was submitted following an initial scan for content, exactly in keeping with the high-quality control that Frontiers has put in place. Indeed, one of the reasons why Frontiers was founded was to fix the many problems of traditional peer review, which we achieve by: 1. Appointing only top-notch researchers and clinicians to our boards to ensure quality; 2. Introducing standardized review questionnaires that enforce in-depth and rigorous reviews; 3. Creating the interactive “Review Forum” which opens a direct dialogue between authors, reviewers and editors, allowing not only the editor, but also the reviewers to see and participate in each other’s reviews; 4. Requiring reviewers and editor to reach a consensus and take a unanimous decision; 5. Publishing the names of the reviewers […]