The Frontiers review consists of two stages:

1. Independent Review
During the independent review, the Review Editors assess the paper independently from each other and the authors, according to our standardized review template.

2. Interactive Review
During the interactive review, authors and Review Editors can interact with each other through comments, in real-time, much like an internet discussion group. The specialty Associate and Chief Editors are able to enter the site and oversee the review process. The Associate Editor is responsible for making sure that the review process occurs timely, and is in agreement with the Frontiers rules and regulations. The review is complete once all review comments are addressed to the Review Editors' satisfaction. Frontiers provides a review template to standardize and focus reviews on objective issues. This allows equal, fair, rapid, comprehensive and comparable assessment of research. Our interactive review forum facilitates the review process by enabling authors and Review Editors to directly communicate with one another. Comments and suggestions surrounding an article are easily accessed and addressed with this review method. A major objective for Frontiers is to remove bias from the review system. In the Frontiers system the Review Editors remain anonymous only during the review period. After the review, the screen is lifted and the Review Editors are disclosed. This system achieves the effect of ensuring authors address all issues raised by Review Editors seriously. It also protects Review Editors in the event that they wish to withdraw from the review process. Frontiers strives to provide authors with the highest quality review service by recruiting outstanding scientists as Review Editors for the editorial boards of the Frontiers specialty sections and journals. Review Editors work in collaboration with the authors to bring the paper to its best quality. Frontiers promotes a strict separation between review and evaluation. Review Editors can comment only in regards to objective issues and can reject research papers based solely upon objective errors. The mandate for Review Editors is to ensure that the experiments are valid, the results are flawless and the quality is as high as possible. Should a dispute arise that threatens to reject an article, the author may trigger arbitration. Initially, the Associate Editor of a particular specialty journal will arbitrate and involve all Review Editors in a discussion aimed at resolving the problem. If a resolution cannot be agreed upon, the Specialty Chief Editor is alerted and can opt to bring in additional Review Editors or Associate Editors for consultation. An article can be rejected if the arbitration rules that the objective error stands. Review Editors may also trigger arbitration if they feel that the author is unwilling or reluctant to make required changes. A Review Editor may also withdraw from the review process if he/she disagrees with the other Review Editor and the arbitration rulings, in which case their identity remains undisclosed. The withdrawal of a Review Editor requires the recruitment of a new Review Editor, and slows the process substantially. Authors therefore need to co-operate as much as possible to address the concerns of Review Editors involved with their article(s).