No, "should be" as in, it must be reviewed but can be skipped if there's a concern like revealing the author identity in a double-blind process.
bedrooms
joined 1 year ago
Actually, figures should be checked during the reviewing process. It's not an excuse.
The biggest problem with Frontiers for me is that there are some handy survey articles that are cited like 500 times. It seems that Interdisciplinary surveys are hard to publish in a traditional journal, and as a result 500 articles cited this handy overview article for readers who would need an overview.
The article I checked was in a reasonable quality, and it's a shame I can't cite it just because it's in Frontiers.
It's how this publisher works. They make it insanely difficult for reviewers to reject a submission.
AIs are inaccurate. Conservatives are stupid.
They can buy a HIMARS with that $50 /s
The pattern is, the latter are targets of Russian operations, and so far it seems to be successful at generating kompromats.
The bad part is that Telegram provides keys to Russia's FSB.
Err... ChatGPT detectors are like 50% accurate... These "reasonable precautions" translate to "we'll try, but there's nothing we can really do."
Not a good look as a publisher.
From Wikipedia:
In May 2015, Frontiers Media removed the entire editorial boards of Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine after editors complained that Frontiers Media staff were "interfering with editorial decisions and violating core principles of medical publishing". In total 31 editors were removed. Following this incident, Nature Publishing Group ended its collaboration with Frontiers with the intent "never to mention again that Nature Publishing Group has some kind of involvement in Frontiers."[14]
In June 2015, Retraction Watch referred to the publisher as one with "a history of badly handled and controversial retractions and publishing decisions".[40]
According to researchers referenced in a 2015 blog post quoted by Allison and James Kaufman in the 2018 book Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, "Frontiers has used an in-house journals management software that does not give reviewers the option to recommend the rejection of manuscripts" and the "system is setup to make it almost impossible to reject papers".[41] However, as of 2022, Frontiers maintains that reviewers are given the option to reject papers with specific recommendations.[42]
In 2017, further editors were removed, allegedly for their rejection rate being high.[citation needed] In December 2017, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch wrote in the magazine Nautilus that the acceptance rate of manuscripts in Frontiers journals was reported to be near 90%.[43]
Make no mistake, Putin is responsible for Navalny's death
Why is this a news?
view more: next ›
I checked the news in my country and they say it's illegal here on the ground that the supreme court ruled "the toxicity is public knowledge."
Stupidity...