Frontiers | Science News

Science News post list

347 news posts in Open science

Open science and peer review

12 Feb 2014

Frontiers releases new Interactive Review Forum

Frontiers is pleased to announce the release of its new, revolutionary Interactive Review Forum with enhanced features and upgraded software to enhance and ease the collaborative dialogue between authors and reviewers. The Review Forum is part of the Frontiers Open Science platform that empowers scientists to advance the way research is evaluated, communicated and shared in the digital era. Introduced in 2007, Frontiers’ peer review enables a collaborative dialogue online in real-time between authors and reviewers, with an associate editor as moderator. The final decision is based on consensus about objective issues between reviewers and editors, who are named on the final publication to acknowledge their valuable contribution and ensure transparency. Acting like a personal Web 2.0 assistant, the Review Forum guides authors, reviewers and editors smoothly through the process and alerts them when action is required. The system minimizes delay and speeds up the review, shortening the average time to only 84 days. Handy new features make it easier to manage the review process and ensure that it progresses smoothly. Editors can easily browse the most relevant reviewer profiles based on keywords, and send invitations with the click of a button.  A timeline reassures authors by keeping them informed on […]

Open science and peer review

22 Oct 2013

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 […]