Talk:Frontiers Media/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Marriage/Amway theme of Frontiers Media

Is Rabett Run an important enough blogger to count as a WP:RS? As pointed out at http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/04/amway-science.html, Frontiers Media use an image on their "history" page http://www.frontiersin.org/about/history which is this image from http://wkc.org/grow/marriage/, but with the marriage ring gimped off. This could be a copyright violation by Frontiers Media - the image at wkc.org has much more metadata in it, e.g. 

Grow-your-Marriage2.jpg Image size      : 2652 x 1674
Grow-your-Marriage2.jpg Camera make     : NIKON CORPORATION
Grow-your-Marriage2.jpg Camera model    : NIKON D50
Grow-your-Marriage2.jpg Image timestamp : 2009:07:16 06:28:08

so it appears to be the original one. However, this "marriage" aspect of Frontiers is only in the comments of the Rabett Run blog. We would need a more serious source. Boud (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but in the greater scheme of things, I think there are more important things to report about Frontiers than this very trivial and very minor factoid. Even on that blog, it's only a comment from a reader, ignored by everybody else. Whether that blog is an RS or not, that comment most certainly is not RS. Even with better sources, it's absolutely trivial and has no place in an encyclopedic article. That blogger makes way more important and pertinent observations. Never heard of him, but if someone can confirm this is an RS, we should use those comments in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

is controversies section required as per recent Nature Publishing Group article?[1] Please suggest. Dentking07 (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Let me proceed with new section creationDentking07 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

predatory open-access publishers

No one updating the Jeffrey Beall's list of "Potential, possible, or probable" Predatory open access publishers. There is no legal source. It should be removed. Nanonine (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frontiers Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello all, I'd like to suggest an edit to the main page of Frontiers (Publisher), making the statement that some aspects of their marketing campaign correspond to spam and misleading approach tactics. Frontier's personnel cast a large and unfocused net trying to lure scientists into setting up Research Topics, which are a sort of special issue. I've experienced this aggressive and border-line deceptive approach strategy in person, and other individuals have documented similar experiences here: http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/11/05/i-get-complaints-about-frontiers/

The method is as follows: "editorial project managers" working for Frontiers contact scientists via email, giving the impression they find one's work interesting enough so that it should be further developed in a special issue ('research topic'). However, it quickly becomes clear that the approach is indiscriminate (research assistants are contacted, or researchers are contacted about work they've done years ago), and most important, the 'editorial project manager' will use a 'foot in the door' maneuver where, if the scientist agrees to take on arranging the special issue, he/she are tasked of convincing an editor of a frontiers journal to agree to this topic.

To summarize: This mode of approach is clearly motivated by an interest in increasing revenue (each research topic represents 2.5 - 6K Euro, conservatively) rather than by an effort to advance science, since the frontiers personnel who make the contact oftentimes do not provide any good reason for why they contacted the specific researcher (see web page above for examples).

For this reason, I suggest to open a section called 'Criticisms' with subsection 'misleading marketing practices' 93.37.50.181 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made an edit to this effect on May 3, 2014, which was deleted on May 6 by user Gogadget123, whose history includes making 4 edits, all on the Frontiers page. 2.239.213.57 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

-- Hello, I don't use Wikipedia much but I agree that a section on Criticisms is warranted. I recommend that the deleted text be restored; can someone do it?69.173.127.101 Anniebiogirl (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Frontiers runs an amway-type scam.137.205.101.55 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frontiers Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

I have protected this article again, this time for 3 days. I'm very disappointed that the edit war here started again as soon as the previous protection expired, even while the discussion on this talk page is still ongoing. I have blocked the editor who re-ignite the edit war, Joel B. Lewis for 24 hours. However, I am equally disappointed that Headbomb let himself be goaded to revert and he is warned that if this happen again, I won't hesitate to block him, or anybody else who starts warring again, too. I warn all involved that any subsequent blocks will be for 1 week at a minimum. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing of journal list

Should it time to remove the journal list or keep it? Not sure that journal list is helpful. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes well good job making the article worse then. Of course it's not helpful: it obviously has no encyclopedic value, it's just a directory of some publisher's journals. Separately, please learn how to count to 4, it's a useful skill if you're going to WP:3RR reports. --JBL (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep obviously. We have a slew of redirects coming to the article, and readers are best served if we follow the principle of least astonishment. Those journals are obviously relevant to a section discussing the journal series itself, and we can also distinguish the journals part of the series from similiar sounding journals which aren't part of the series. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it should go; we are not not a catalog although people who work on journals seem to forget this sometimes. Nor are we a proxy for the journal's website. I don't think anybody should find it astonishing that some specific journal "Frontiers in X", redirected here, is not specifically mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I tend to come down in favor of keeping the list, for the reasons that Headbomb indicates. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • We should lose the cruft. That's all it is: the reader knows they print journals—because that's what they do—but this is giving undue weight to each individual item. That's besides the point that it's unsourced material per WP:LISTN. And as said above, this is very much what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
If sourcing is the issue, it's quite easy to add a {{cite web|title=Journals A-Z |publisher=Frontiers Media|url=https://www.frontiersin.org/about/journals-a-z?utm_source=Home&utm_medium=Carousel&utm_campaign=frontiersin-az|accessdate=2018-03-09}}. This isn't cruft. Frontiers Media is known for publishing journals. Those are the journals it publishes. This is important to know, especially since many of those journals are of questionable quality. WP:LISTN applies to standalone lists, this isn't one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • OMG what directory cruft (sorry Headbomb). Cut. (As for sourcing, of course it can be sourced, but can it be sourced by secondary sources that prove it's worth listing in our article?) Drmies (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing each individual entries by 3rd party source is never the standard we used anywhere for deciding whether a list should be including in the article or not. Individual journals published by Frontiers Media have been routinely discussed in by several independent sources. It's pretty important to list which journals are actually Frontiers Media journals, because there are several other Frontiers in... or Frontiers of ... journal which are not part of Frontiers Media. For instance, Frontiers publishes several journal in neurosciences
  • Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
  • Frontiers in Neuroenergetics
  • Frontiers in Neuroengineering
  • Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
  • Frontiers in Neurology
  • Frontiers in Neurorobotics
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience
  • Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
Someone that comes across this article without the list of journal could very well be under the impression that Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology is a Frontiers journal, whereas it has zero affiliation with Frontiers Media, but is rather published by Elsevier. Likewise for Frontiers in Energy by Springer. Or Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment by Ecological Society of America. (I could find many, many other examples of other such journals). Removing the list does a huge disservice to the reader, which is at best left guessing if a journal is part of Frontiers Media or not, and at worse thinking it's part of Frontiers Media when it's not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
For comparison, we do the same for other journal series, especially those that can easily be confused, like Current Opinion (Elsevier), Current Opinion (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins), Current Opinion (Current Drugs). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That two private companies choose to sell products with similar names is their problem; it has no encyclopedic significance. (It's not like "who is the publisher of this journal?" is a particularly hard problem to answer, anyhow.) The existence of the redirects is 100% a result of your personal project to have a redirect for every possible way a person could choose to enter a journal name into wikipedia's search bar, but this is not related to any encyclopedic goal. We're not a directory, this is clear cruft, and there is clear consensus here for removal. --JBL (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, Current Opinion (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) has exactly one source and it is ... literally just a list (maintained by the publisher) of all the journals in the series; Current Opinion (Elsevier) has no references at all, and its one external link is ... to a webpage maintained by the publisher that lists all the journals in the series; and Current Opinion (Current Drugs) has no references or external links of any kind whatsoever. So, all three articles should be deleted, none of them serves any encyclopedic purpose, and for the first two even their function as a comprehensive directory (which is unambiguously not the role of Wikipedia) is redundant with the lists maintained by the publishers. --JBL (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Those are all notable journal series. You can nominate them for deletion if you want, but they will be kept. I'd argue there's clear consensus to keep, because this is most certainly not cruft, and of high encyclopedic relevance. See WP:SIA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I've again reverted your removal. There is zero consensus to remove. Let an outside person close the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
There are various ways to interpret a ratio of 5 to 2, but "zero" isn't one of them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
At the very least, after barely a day of discussion without a full exploration of the alternatives to removal, or addressing the actual reasons for keeping the list, it's an extremely premature decision. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This is getting a little more heated than it should. Howzabout we put a link to Frontier's list of journals in the EL section? That way someone who wants to know what journals they published will have a straightforward way of finding out, and we don't interrupt the article's narrative with a big list. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I could see a standlone List of Frontiers Media journals / Frontiers in... journal series (Frontiers Media), like we do for other major publishers with long lists / other series, but not an external link to it. Such external links will only present the most up to date information, but journals that get shutdown/renamed won't be featured on it. Would that work for you?Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you willing to make a commitment to keep such a list up to date? That's one of my concerns with lists like this. It would also need to separate out current journals from ones that are shut down or renamed as you mention. (As a side comment, I find WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments unpersuasive in general. Not picking on you here; that's just meant to explain my thinking.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty decent at maintaining journal series up to date. See the various Current Opinion articles, or the recently created Comptes Rendus (not a quite a series, but close enough). Or for a parallel case, BMC journal series, which redirects to BioMed Central.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
If you're willing to make the commitment I think this would be OK. Of course, it's not my decision. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
A separate list page would be fine by me. I don't think an external link to the publisher's website would be adequate; as mentioned above, journals get shut down and renamed. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a way forward then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: Yes, individual journals get shut down and renamed; what is the significance of this fact? If the journal is independently notable, it should have its own article and we should keep track of that on an article-by-article basis. If it's not independently notable, who cares? The publisher can update its own list of its own journals. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure a list would meet WP:LISTN. Would it? Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Several journals in the list would be notable on their own, and Frontiers Media is a highly-criticized publisher because of their questionable publishing practices when it comes to the Frontiers series. If the list is felt to clutter the article, we can fork it to its own list article. Or we can keep it. But Wikipedia isn't improved by removing the list outright. Per WP:LISTN "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question. If individual journals should have their own articles maybe they should do. But WP is not a catalog and making it into one, doesn't improve it. Not here or anywhere else. We get people trying to do that all over the place -- every song some person recorded, every paper some person published, etc etc etc. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
By that argument, you could delete every list on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is the notability guideline for lists. Obviously, some lists can satisfy it and some can't. Lists that have no secondary sourcing can't, because everything on Wikipedia is supposed to have secondary sourcing. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
No, not everything. You need to bring secondary sourcing when you start to make claims that require secondary sources. For instance, the reference for Forbes Celebrity 100 is Forbes itself, since Forbes decides who is in the Forbes Celebrity 100. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
List or whatever, I think it's important to have a way that readers can distinguish between those published by this company and those with just a similar name. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
That is a surprising statement. If Wikipedia were a catalog of course we would want unique entries on everything and have everything in the world disambiguated but we are not a catalog; we are an encyclopedia. I am constantly trimming lists like this. Somebody wanted to list every drug sold by Allergan for example. This is nuts. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
A list of drugs sold by a company wouldn't be notable, but a list of drugs developped by a company might be, depending on the company. I'd argue that drugs developed by Pfizer would make a very nice article, or section of article. Pfizer#Products seems to agree with me there. Likewise for say, List of Coca-Cola brands. Not all those are notable on their own, but as a whole, the Coca-Cola portfolio is.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing the problem at the Pfizer article. Addressed. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I only agree that Pfizer#Products should contain lists of drugs Pfizer themselves control or developed, not that every generic drug they're tied with. So I'm entirely fine with removing the generic stuff, or things only loosely associated with Pfizer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I often agree with Jytdog, but here I think he's completely missed my point. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What was your point? All the publishers maintain lists to their own journals, no one objects to an EL or to appropriate "not to be confused with" tagging. --JBL (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
He pretty clearly meant having a way for readers, staying inside WP, to differentiate whether a given "frontiers in X" journal was from this company or another. I just don't agree with that. There is a notion around (for journals especially), that WP should serve as a card-catalog-type library reference tool and I struggle with that; it has been around a long time but I do not think it is in-mission but is rather a topic on which people have gone awry and try to make WP something that it is NOT. I understand all the reasons for it but I don't agree with them. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Doug Weller, Guy had raised the mission/NOT issue about journals at Jimbo's talk page back in November 2016, here, which I think is a clear articulation of it. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Split

Alright, per above, I've forked the section to its own article at Frontiers journal series. Let's see if that works for people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And I have done this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontiers in... journal series Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • After the above AfD ended in no consensus, I have boldly merged this back here. The content had a very significant chunk of duplication. I think we should hold an RfC as to whether to include the list of journals or not. This is how the discussion above should have progressed. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, this is clearly better. And I agree about the RfC. --JBL (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How long are we going to refer to Jeffrey Beall?

Beall's list is closed down in 2017. Publishers on this list are not able to appeal their cases, as there is simply no list any longer. Hence, mentioning that a publisher was on Beall's list has only a temporal application. As most people blindly take over what is written on Wikipedia, I believe that the Wiki editors should reconsider and/or put a time-cap on mentioning the Beall list. Or put it to a less prominent place on the Wiki-site of a publisher. The fact that Elsevier, Sage, and others have way more controversial issues up their sleeves than this publisher (but hardly mentioned on their websites), should be indicative of how we report on Frontiers media and other open-access publishers. Hence, the question: for how long does the Beall list remain relevant? Kenji1987 (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is wide open for anyone to edit can mislead onlookers into thinking that all they need to do is be persistent and they can puff up their articles. That doesn't work. Please get some experience editing in areas where there is no conflict of interest. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Your answer is completely off-topic. I am raising a genuine concern here. Until when is Beall list considered relevant? Any other Wikipedians with a view on this? Kenji1987 (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Johnuniq, are you referring to someone in particular?
I agree we now can and should better sources. The Frontiers-Beall controversy is widely discussed, for instance in Strinzel 2019 and Teixeira da Silva 2018. Studies now exist on actually observed and perceived issues with Frontiers and others, for instance Christopher 2015 and Bagues 2018. There's at least one published source on the matter of email solicitations/academic spam (doi:10.1080/08998280.2018.1498725), where 16 large journals are listed, including two by Frontiers Media. Nemo 09:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It will be forever relevant because if, say in the year 2340, Frontiers is a powerhouse of scientific integrity, its earlier days will still need to be documented. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure we would write in Elsevier whether Lodewijk Elzevir once accidentally set fire on a batch of Galileo books, but we probably would if we had extensive literature about the incident. Nemo 19:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
What Headbomb said - just because the list is no longer maintained, does not alter the fact that Frontiers was listed. SmartSE (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Forever. He pioneered the critique of predatory journals. Guy (help!) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand that Beall will be "forever" mentioned, but should it be in the lead? In 2 years time, publishers change. Shouldn't it then be consequently mentioned that Beall's list was closed down in 2017 (what's the merit of using an outdated list as stamp of disapproval?)? Why do we for example not mention in the leads of publishers that accepted the fake paper from Who is afraid of peer review?. If being a pioneer counts as being subsequently mentioned in leads of publisher, then this is definitely a pioneering study which has shaken up the whole open access publishing industry. Every publisher has a history section, wouldn't it be better just to move the Beall's list there? Kenji1987 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Because the lead needs to summarize the article, and the inclusion on Beall's list is a significant thing that is lead-worthy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
But for how long? At a certain point the Beall list is outdated as it is not being updated any longer. It is history and for this reason better suited in the history section, no? Kenji1987 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Forever, since it will forever remain a significant point in Frontiers' history. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't we then mention that Beall's list has been closed in 2017? Then let the reader decide for themselves, whether they judge the quality of Frontiers based on a 2017 list or not. How it is phrased now is that it looks like Frontiers is still a presumably predatory journal, but we simply don't know as there are no current legitimate sources saying that Frontiers Media is. I find the current criteria highly subjective. Just because senior Wiki editors decide that something is significant, does not make it significant per se. The fact that I am being bothered by editors about my presumable conflict of interest, says that we need to have a meaningful discussion about open access publishers.Kenji1987 (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That's what is called original research aka synthesis. What reliable source suggests Frontiers is a standard publisher that should not be regarded as similar to those on Beall's list? Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Web of Science, Scopus, DOAJ, and other white-lists. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That Beall's list closed in 2017 is relevant to Beall's list, not to Frontiers. We also write "Frontiers Media was included ..." and not "Frontiers Media is included ...". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
*Ok, then hereby the suggestion to mention the fact the Frontiers journals have been included in web of science and scopus. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
We already do, for WOS, e.g. "As of 2015, 16 of their journals had impact factors, a number that grew to 24 in 2017." If you have data for Scopus, feel free to add it. But in general, this is why people accuse you of conflicts of interest. Pretty much everything you ask is requesting positive coverage of questionable publishers, decreasing negative coverage, and expressing consternation that bottom-tier publisher as seen as bottom tier. It is becoming increasingly hard to believe you do not have a conflict of interest here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think if an expired blacklist should be in the lead, then current whitelists should also be in the lead. If not, why not? You seemed to have made up your mind already about Frontiers.Kenji1987 (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have sources discussing Frontier's inclusion in WOS/Scopus/etc as being something that's worth nothing in the lead, like we do for OASPA (positive), COPE (positive), and Beall's list (negative)? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Ill work on it. Kenji1987 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
You're wasting your time because these sources don't exist. At best, you'll have a passing mention that some journals are covered in WoS / Scopus. Neither released statements about their decision to include Frontiers in their indexing, and their inclusion in such services hasn't generated comparable coverage to doi:10.1038/526613f. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ill adopt a Hindawi like lead Kenji1987 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hindawi is not accused of multiple severe transgressions like Frontiers is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hindawi is another bottom tiered publisher listed om Beall's list before it was removed. But what I mean is that Ill find out whether Frontiers is a member of cope, oapsa doaj, and put it in the lead.Kenji1987 (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Frontiers is a member of COPE and OASPA, and this is already in the lead, with references. DOAJ is irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Id like to articulate it in a similar way as Hindawi's lead. Now it seems somewhat contested. Like well we know Frontiers is a rotten egg, but yeah they are still a member somewhere. If DOAJ is irrelevant, can you remove these references in other publisher pages that also mention it? Thanks Kenji1987 (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hindawi doesn't mention DOAJ either. And see WP:SOFIXIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why isnt DOAJ a credible source? It is worlds most renowned white list. Regarding the latter remark, fair enough. Kenji1987 (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Because DOAJ's aims to be comprehensive in its coverage, and its criteria for inclusion is basically being open access and not flat out predatory. Saying you're indexed in DOAJ is like saying you've never been convicted of murder. That's why we don't mention it on any publisher's article, be it Hindawi Publishing Corporation, PLOS, BioMed Central, Springer Science+Business Media, Elsevier, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok thanks. :) Kenji1987 (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
https://blog.doaj.org/2019/09/17/myth-busting-all-open-access-journals-can-be-listed-in-doaj/ -> what do you think about this blog article? Kenji1987 (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
See "being open access and not flat out predatory". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I've linked some sources above which discuss the matter. Nemo 07:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Frontiers has 51 journals listed with the DOAJ seal. All this information about indexing probably belongs to the section "List of journals"; it should be removed from the lead of any article as Scopus, WoS and the others are totally irrelevant. DOAJ is more selective than Scopus or WoS, which are more often found to contain predatory journals. Please read the sources I linked, otherwise this talk page becomes only a forum for personal opinions. Nemo 08:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
1) DOAJ is nowhere near as selective as WoS or Scopus, 2) Your links show nothing particularly relevant to this article. 3) There is no such information in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Headbomb, you redid my changes, which I understand why you did, but shouldn't we mention that Frontiers is a member of these organisations, not particularly in connection to being controversial or not, to keep it more objective? I'd suggest to adopt a Hindawi like lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no need to mention something twice in the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand that, by why does this fact has to be mentioned in relation to the journal being controversial? I'd rather remove the current mention, and write it down more neutral.Kenji1987 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest Wikipedia editors replace the logo in the sidebar with Frontiers Media's current logo? I should not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media.

Please let me know if there's anything more you need. Else, look forward to working together.


JBFrontiers (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

IMHO it would be ok for you to overwrite commons:File:Frontiers Logo 2.png. The difference is not dramatic and we don't need to preserve a gallery of all versions of the logo, I would say. It would be better for the logo to be explicitly licensed under cc-by on the website itself, as we can't verify the identity or legal status of the users. Nemo 12:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: I'm not sure I have access to overwrite the file. Also, the updated logo is more artistic than the simple block text, so would uploading here at English Wikipedia under fair use make more sense? I have a limited number of edits so I'm not sure I can complete this process. Are you able to try? If not I will make an attempt to do so soon. JBFrontiers (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: and others watching this Talk page: I uploaded File:Frontiers Media logo 2020.png for fair use. Can someone replace the old logo in the infobox with this new logo? JBFrontiers (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bilby: Thank you. JBFrontiers (talk) 07:40, 29 June 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)

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.[1] The Frontiers journals use open peer review, where the names of reviewers of accepted articles are made public.[2] As of 2017,[3] 24 of their journals had impact factors. In February 2016, the series contained 54 journals,[4] a number that grew to more than 80 by 2020.[5] The collection of all the journals in the series is sometimes considered a megajournal, as is the BioMed Central series.[4][6][7] Some journals, such as Frontiers in Human Neuroscience[8] or Frontiers in Microbiology[9] 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

  1. ^ Butler, Declan (May 7, 2010). "Publisher seeks patent". Nature. Retrieved June 22, 2020.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Helmer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ 2016 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Clarivate Analytics. 2017.
  4. ^ a b Spezi, Valerie; Wakeling, Simon; Pinfield, Stephen; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Willett, Peter (2017). "Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review" (PDF). Journal of Documentation. 73 (2): 263–283. doi:10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082. Series, such as the BMC Series ... or Frontiers in [...] Series ... might, taken as a whole, be viewed as a broad disciplinary scope journal. This is particularly the case when series titles seem to be marketed and managed as a coherent set rather than as separate titles.
  5. ^ "Journals A-Z". Frontiers Media. Retrieved 2 June 2020.
  6. ^ Domnina, T. N. (2016). "A megajournal as a new type of scientific publication". Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 43 (4): 241–250. doi:10.3103/S0147688216040079.
  7. ^ Binfield, Peter (2013-12-17). "Novel scholarly journal concepts". In Bartling, S.; Friesike, S. (eds.). Opening Science. Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 155–163. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_10. ISBN 978-3-319-00025-1.
  8. ^ Ware, Mark; Mabe, Michael (2015). "The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing" (PDF). International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers.
  9. ^ Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482.

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.[1] As of 2017,[2] 24 of their journals had impact factors. In February 2016, the series contained 54 journals,[3] a number that grew to more than 80 by 2020.[4] The collection of all the journals in the series is sometimes considered a megajournal, as is the BioMed Central series.[3][5][6] Some journals, such as Frontiers in Human Neuroscience[7] or Frontiers in Microbiology[8] 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

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Helmer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ 2016 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Clarivate Analytics. 2017.
  3. ^ a b Spezi, Valerie; Wakeling, Simon; Pinfield, Stephen; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Willett, Peter (2017). "Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review" (PDF). Journal of Documentation. 73 (2): 263–283. doi:10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082. Series, such as the BMC Series ... or Frontiers in [...] Series ... might, taken as a whole, be viewed as a broad disciplinary scope journal. This is particularly the case when series titles seem to be marketed and managed as a coherent set rather than as separate titles.
  4. ^ "Journals A-Z". Frontiers Media. Retrieved 2 June 2020.
  5. ^ Domnina, T. N. (2016). "A megajournal as a new type of scientific publication". Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 43 (4): 241–250. doi:10.3103/S0147688216040079.
  6. ^ Binfield, Peter (2013-12-17). "Novel scholarly journal concepts". In Bartling, S.; Friesike, S. (eds.). Opening Science. Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 155–163. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_10. ISBN 978-3-319-00025-1.
  7. ^ Ware, Mark; Mabe, Michael (2015). "The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing" (PDF). International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers.
  8. ^ Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi:10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482.

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)

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.[1] The software helps identify conflicts of interest and plagiarism, assesses manuscript and peer review quality, recommends editors and reviewers, and other issues.[1][2] The software does not flag all forms of conflict of interest, such as undisclosed funding sources or affiliations.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Do You Have a Conflict of Interest? This Robotic Assistant May Find It First". The New York Times. November 23, 2020. Retrieved January 4, 2021.
  2. ^ "Peer Review of Scholarly Research Gets an AI Boost". IEEE Spectrum. July 27, 2020. Retrieved January 4, 2021.

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."
  • "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)

Technically, there isn't a rule against citing blog posts. The rule, instead, is about citing sources that are both (a) self-published works and (b) not written by an expert. The category of "expert" is broad enough that it includes pretty much everyone who has written, even once, about their area of interest for a magazine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for replying to my question. What do you think of this SciELO post that was removed from this Wikipedia article? Given your description of what is acceptable, it seems like it could be used to verify information on Wikipedia. Thanks for helping me better understand what sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. JBFrontiers (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@JBFrontiers, we live in an imperfect world, and Frontiers has a complex reputation, so I am not entirely surprised that some volunteers are happy to remove a blog from one reputable organization that praises Frontiers, while leaving in other blogs (including at least two from individuals) that criticize it, especially if the editor is just trying to make a quick improvement without delving into the subject in depth. In the absence of high-quality independent sources that analyze Frontiers' history and current status (e.g., a series of feature-length articles in reputable publications such as The Chronicle of Higher Education) and an editor interested in fully developing this article, I'm not sure that this article will ever be in good shape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink

May I suggest editors wikilink to Frontiers for Young Minds in Frontiers_Media#History? 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.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Ferkijel (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ferkijel: Thanks for reviewing and wikilinking Frontiers for Young Minds. JBFrontiers (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frontiers_Media/Archive_1&oldid=1164977489"