Talk:Frontiers Media

List of journals

May I suggest updates to Frontiers Media#List of journals? I should not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I inserted my proposed updates on this discussion page for others to inspect. The list of journals was edited this month by User:Pseer2020 and User:Headbomb. Would either of you care to vet these potential updates?

My updates include:

1. Frontiers Media's website lists 86 journals. The article says 84. But since this figure changes, I suggest "more than 80" to make the text more evergreen
2. Frontiers in ICT has been blended into another journal and therefore no longer exists, so I removed it
3. Frontiers in Oral Health and Frontiers in Space Technologies are current journals not listed in this article, so I included them
4. I included a new introductory sentence to specify upfront that the journals are peer-reviewed open access scientific journals

List of journals
Frontiers Media publishes peer-reviewed open access scientific journals. The Frontiers journals use open peer review, where the names of reviewers of accepted articles are made public. As of 2017, 24 of their journals had impact factors. In February 2016, the series contained 54 journals, a number that grew to more than 80 by 2020. The collection of all the journals in the series is sometimes considered a megajournal, as is the BioMed Central series. Some journals, such as Frontiers in Human Neuroscience or Frontiers in Microbiology are considered megajournals on their own.

• Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Agronomy
• Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics
• Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
• Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
• Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Big Data
• Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
• Frontiers in Blockchain
• 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 Chemical Engineering
• Frontiers in Chemistry
• Frontiers in Climate
• Frontiers in Communication
• Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Computer Science
• Frontiers in Dental Medicine
• Frontiers in Digital Health
• 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 Chemistry
• Frontiers in Environmental Science
• Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
• Frontiers in Future Transportation
• Frontiers in Genetics
• Frontiers in Genome Editing
• Frontiers in Global Women's Health
• Frontiers in Human Dynamics
• Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Immunology
• Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Marine Science
• Frontiers in Materials
• Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering
• Frontiers in Medical Technology
• Frontiers in Medicine
• Frontiers in Microbiology
• Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
• Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Nanotechnology
• 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 Oral Health
• Frontiers in Pediatrics
• Frontiers in Pharmacology
• Frontiers in Physics
• Frontiers in Physiology
• Frontiers in Plant Science
• Frontiers in Political Science
• Frontiers in Psychiatry
• Frontiers in Psychology
• Frontiers in Public Health
• Frontiers in Reproductive Health
• Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics
• Frontiers in Robotics and AI
• Frontiers in Sociology
• Frontiers in Space Technologies
• Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
• Frontiers in Surgery
• Frontiers in Sustainability
• Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
• Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
• Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Toxicology
• Frontiers in Veterinary Science
• Frontiers in Virtual Reality
• Frontiers in Water
• Frontiers for Young Minds

References

Please let me know if there's anything more you need.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• +1 on saying "more than 80" or similar. Wikipedia is not a database. (For the same reason I'd kill all mentions of journal impact factor from our articles, or at very least round them at the first significant digit, but it's probably a lost cause.) Nemo 13:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Support "more than 80", but removing Frontiers in ICT (which redirects to this list) is not good since people will still search for it. It would be better to mark with a † and indicate it's defunct. Also no need to have [an] "introductory sentence to specify upfront that the journals are peer-reviewed open access scientific journals" because that's already stated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis and Headbomb: I would support including Frontiers in ICT if it was marked defunct. If you do not think "Frontiers Media publishes peer-reviewed open access scientific journals" is needed in this section, I am OK with that as well. Should I update my draft above or post a new one?

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming back to this request to see if editors are able to update the list of journals discussed above. Given feedback from editors, I adjusted my proposed text.

My updates include:

1. Frontiers Media's website lists 86 journals. The article says 84. But since this figure changes, I suggest "more than 80" to make the text more evergreen
2. Frontiers in ICT has been marked defunct
3. Frontiers in Oral Health and Frontiers in Space Technologies are current journals not listed in this article, so I included them

List of journals
The Frontiers journals use open peer review, where the names of reviewers of accepted articles are made public. As of 2017, 24 of their journals had impact factors. In February 2016, the series contained 54 journals, a number that grew to more than 80 by 2020. The collection of all the journals in the series is sometimes considered a megajournal, as is the BioMed Central series. Some journals, such as Frontiers in Human Neuroscience or Frontiers in Microbiology are considered megajournals on their own.

• Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Agronomy
• Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics
• Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
• Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
• Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Big Data
• Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
• Frontiers in Blockchain
• 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 Chemical Engineering
• Frontiers in Chemistry
• Frontiers in Climate
• Frontiers in Communication
• Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Computer Science
• Frontiers in Dental Medicine
• Frontiers in Digital Health
• 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 Chemistry
• Frontiers in Environmental Science
• Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
• Frontiers in Future Transportation
• Frontiers in Genetics
• Frontiers in Genome Editing
• Frontiers in Global Women's Health
• Frontiers in Human Dynamics
• Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
• Frontiers in ICT † (defunct)
• Frontiers in Immunology
• Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Marine Science
• Frontiers in Materials
• Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering
• Frontiers in Medical Technology
• Frontiers in Medicine
• Frontiers in Microbiology
• Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
• Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Nanotechnology
• 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 Oral Health
• Frontiers in Pediatrics
• Frontiers in Pharmacology
• Frontiers in Physics
• Frontiers in Physiology
• Frontiers in Plant Science
• Frontiers in Political Science
• Frontiers in Psychiatry
• Frontiers in Psychology
• Frontiers in Public Health
• Frontiers in Reproductive Health
• Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics
• Frontiers in Robotics and AI
• Frontiers in Sociology
• Frontiers in Space Technologies
• Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
• Frontiers in Surgery
• Frontiers in Sustainability
• Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
• Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
• Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
• Frontiers in Toxicology
• Frontiers in Veterinary Science
• Frontiers in Virtual Reality
• Frontiers in Water
• Frontiers for Young Minds

References

Please let me know if there's anything more you need.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis and Headbomb: I adjusted my proposed text given your feedback. Is this an acceptable update to List of journals?

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis and Headbomb: Hope you are well. Are you still interested in potentially updating List of journals? I adjusted my proposed text given your feedback. Thanks.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the Wikilink for each listed journal. So far, only 4 have been given. Regards,  Spintendo  15:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spintendo: The other journals redirect to the list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Youllneverwalkalone2019: I noticed you edited the list of journals. You may be interested in this request. I do not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Article tone

Hello! May I ask if Wikipedia editors are willing to review the overall tone of this article? Portions of it are written in a way that, in my mind, are meant to sway readers into forming a certain opinion of Frontiers Media. I should not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media. This is not an attempt to scrub material from the article. But I understand that content should be written in a measured way to maintain the encyclopedic's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, to help readers form their own conclusions on issues.

Below are a few examples of language that could be made more neutral.

• Existing content: "Nevertheless, both COPE and OASPA have retained Frontiers as a member after concerns were raised."
• Potential rewrite: "Frontiers Media is a member of COPE and OASPA."

• Existing content: "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."
• Potential rewrite: "In April 2013, Frontiers in Psychology retracted an article linking climate change denialism and 'conspiracist ideation'; the retraction itself led to the resignations of at least three editors."

• Existing content: "In late September 2014, 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."
• Potential edit: The word "controversial" seems unnecessary.

I am keen to read what others think. This may be a good article for the Wikipedia:Guild of copy editors to review, too.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That "Nevertheless" is not neutral, I agree. It can be rephrased as you suggest, or with a "Was and is member".

I'm not sure what's wrong about the adjective "controversial". Is it contested that the retraction was correlated to the fact that the retracted papers attracted criticism? It's not like Frontiers retracted those articles claiming a clerical error or something; if we don't say why the articles were retracted it's not clear why we're talking about them in the first place. If the sources do not support the idea that there was something notable in those cases, we'd have to just remove them from the article. Maybe I'm missing something? Nemo 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I appreciate these comments! My thinking is that the adjective "controversial" is unnecessary. For example, the sentence "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" includes "controversial" twice, directly underneath the heading "Controversies". It is my opinion that the sentences I mentioned above could both stand on their own and convey what happened without the adjective.

As for "Nevertheless" in the introduction, would you be able to update that sentence if no one else objects?

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Controversial remains. We are not here to whitewash Frontiers for PR purposes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBFrontiers: Can you please confirm that you've read WP:NPOV because your post suggests that you have misunderstood what it means. In short, we represent what reliable sources have said but that does not mean that our content should be neutral. SmartSE (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis, Headbomb, and Smartse: Thanks for reviewing. If there is no consensus for this, then I am course happy to accept your recommendation. I understand if editors prefer not to remove "controversial". I noticed that it’s a word to watch in the Manual of Style and I thought WP:NPOV may apply, which is why I raised this, but appreciate that there’s nuance involved. I’ll be sure to re-read the policy, as someone new to Wikipedia there’s a lot to take in. Thank you. Best, 90.62.171.74 (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Norwegian Science Index

Is Controversies the correct place for Frontiers_Media#Norwegian_Science_Index? Wikipedia:Criticism says "article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism". That essay also says "controversies are protracted public disputes", and I do not think that's the case regarding the Norwegian Science Index, nor is that sentiment supported in the cited reference. I have not seen any independent reliable sources that attest to this as controversial. To create an alternative heading for the Norwegian Science Index material that avoids a negative connotation, would editors consider moving Norwegian Science Index to a new section with the heading Indices or similar? I am keen to read what others think.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Issue resolved in an edit by User:Leondris. JBFrontiers (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant

In recent months, Frontiers Media's Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant software (AIRA) has been highlighted in The New York Times and IEEE Spectrum. Is it appropriate to add a few sentences about AIRA to this article? I should not do so myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect.

Potential addition to Frontiers Media#History: In May 2020, Frontiers Media launched its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant software to external editors. The software helps identify conflicts of interest and plagiarism, assesses manuscript and peer review quality, recommends editors and reviewers, and other issues. The software does not flag all forms of conflict of interest, such as undisclosed funding sources or affiliations.

References

I am keen to read what others think.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That looks good to me.  Done. I removed the vague "and other issues" though. Thanks for requesting the change in accordance with Wikipedia's COI guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for reviewing and placing the material in the article. JBFrontiers (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

User:Mukogodo removed content on Jan 12th. Their reasoning was "blogposts are not reliable sources". In that spirit, I wonder if this article should replace references to the blog For Better Science, which is cited four times in the article. Here are some better sources that could be used:

• "The first journal published was Frontiers in Neuroscience, which opened for submission as a beta version in 2007"
  • These sources verify Frontiers in Neuroscience's 2007 launch:

1. Memo to research funders: If you want open science, try harder, Science | Business
2. Avec Frontiers, les travaux des chercheurs sont publiés rapidement et de manière équitable, Le Temps

• "In October 2015, Frontiers was added to Jeffrey Beall's list of "Potential, possible, or probable" predatory open-access publishers."
  • The blog For Better Science is one of three references cited. Is its inclusion considered Wikipedia:Citation overkill?
• "In 2017, further editors were removed, allegedly for their rejection rate being high."
  • I do not have another reference for this information
• "In September 2016, Frontiers demanded that the university where Beall worked force him to retract his claims.
  • Other sources:

1. Mystery as controversial list of predatory publishers disappears, Science
2. No More 'Beall's List', Inside Higher Ed

Again, I am not asking editors to remove content, just to align with Mukogodo's point from Jan 12th that blogs are not reliable sources and offer these instead.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)