Talk:Frontiers Media/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

History request

I am here with suggestions to Frontiers_Media#History. As I recently read this article, I noticed the History section includes acquisitions and launches, yet it does not include information on how Frontiers' business plan differs from other publishers and Frontiers' contributions to the open access movement; these are important facets of the history of Frontiers. I should not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I propose the following updates to History for others to inspect.

• Potential addition to follow the first sentence of History: Since its launch in 2007, Frontiers has sought to create free access to scientific research. To do so, the open-access publisher charges authors or their research funders article processing charges to have articles published rather than generate revenue through the traditional subscription-based model. Shinobu Kitayama, editor-in-chief of the Attitudes and Social Cognition section of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, identified Frontiers Media as one of two prototypes for open-access academic journals in his analysis of the open-access model. While Kitayama noted Frontiers' "quite low" rejection rates as of 2016, he wrote that Frontiers and similar journals "make room for excellent research that does not fit traditional journals" and "recruit a wider range of editors and reviewers across many countries." Early in Frontiers' history, according to Nature, Frontiers' "systems for interactive online peer review and publishing open-access journals" included software that matches articles to reviewers and an online forum where authors and reviewers discuss revisions.

• Potential addition to follow sentence on Frontiers for Young Minds: Frontiers for Young Minds does not charge its authors publishing fees.

References

I am keen to read what others think.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: I understand that open-access is a major trend that most journals will have to follow if they are to guarantee their sustainability, as competitive pressure pushes down subscription prices and the offer of other open-access journals with good IFs endanger their submission numbers. Therefore I can’t see how open-access is a differentiating factor for Frontiers. If anything, open-access is the only mode in which predatory journals work, which is the source for the controvery referred to in the lead of this article. I remain completely open to being proven wrong. Ferkijel (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ferkijel: Many thanks indeed for your feedback. Frontiers has always been open-access, which is the differentiating factor. Whereas traditional publishers are now transforming their models either in part or in full to adapt to new market conditions, so there is a difference between the two. I also wanted to clarify that I'm not seeking any changes to the current copy, just supplemental info to explain Frontiers' business model. I would note, too, that the collaborative peer review model mentioned in the Nature article is novel for sure. If History is not the right place for this detail, do you think it fits better elsewhere? Thanks again for your time in reviewing this request! JBFrontiers (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. How about we highlight the fact that Frontiers was an early adopter of the open-access model (as opposed to the original proposal that focused on making it a differentiating aspect today)? If we do that, the History section is clearly the place for it. Ferkijel (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. Frontiers most certainly was not an early OA pioneer. BioMed Central and PLOS started in 2000, 7 years before Frontiers. Hindawi (publisher) started even earlier. Faculty of 1000 was also an early player. And let's not forget Medknow Publications (1997)... If anything, Frontiers came late to the OA game, once it was clear that this publishing model actually was sustainable (whoch was not at all evident for the earliest OA publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @RandyKitty:. Considering this, I don’t see the point in this change. The main argument is that the article “does not include information on how Frontiers' business plan differs from other publishers and Frontiers' contributions to the open access movement”. Based on the request (and only on this request) I don’t think Frontiers’ business plan differs from other publishers, and I doubt if coming so late in the game, that they made any significant contribution to “open access movement”. I proposed to decline the request. Ferkijel (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ferkijel and Randykitty: Thank you both for your feedback. I do not see a need to portray Frontiers Media as an early adopter. But I do think Frontiers' open-access model may be appropriate for History, as it is an important facet of the history of the company. JBFrontiers (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Context missing

The live article says "In October 2015, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) said that 'there have been vigorous discussions about, and some editors are uncomfortable with, the editorial processes at Frontiers' but that 'the processes are declared clearly on the publisher's site and we do not believe there is any attempt to deceive either editors or authors about these processes'. Frontiers is a COPE member and one of its employees sits on COPE's council."

While this is all true, there is an important bit of context missing that could mistakenly mislead readers into believing that Frontiers had a say in the statement. In fact, the cited source includes the following: "In the interests of complete transparency, we note here also that one of the Frontiers staff, Mirjam Curno, is a member of COPE council—a position she was elected to when she was employed at the Journal of the International AIDS Society in 2012 and which continued (with the agreement of the COPE Council and on becoming an Associate Member of COPE) after she moved to Frontiers; she is now also a trustee of COPE. (NB, She was not involved in drafting this statement.)" Because it is noted as an important detail, can editors add to this article that the Frontiers employee on COPE's council was not involved in drafting the statement? It's an important detail.

I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect. JBFrontiers (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see that this increase in verbosity would be an improvement to the article. COPE made a statement, we reflect the statement. Those that want to full context can follow the source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Using the better source the case of Leonid Schneider blog vs Allison/ James Kaufman book

Hi Nemo bis so just here to talk about why the book in this case is a better source than the blog. Thanks Medhekp (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Because WP:PUBLISHED. That doesn't mean a book automatically wins over a blog post with the same content, but I relied on the previous editors having actually checked the reliability of that source. Do you have concerns about the book? Nemo 21:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Nemo bis I do not have any concern about the book, but the fact that it comes after issues that had happened in 2017 in the list of controversies may suggest that the fact described in the book is about an issue occurring in 2018 which may be or not be true. But truth of the matter is, the book is quoting evidence from a 2015 blog post.Medhekp (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, moved it back. For that matter the 2015 might be about some practice of 2008 which had been long discontinued before. That's an obvious problem with relying on anecdota. One possible solution would be to include a response by Frontiers, if there was one.

My personal opinion is that saying "journal management software is designed to optimize a publisher's revenue" is saying the obvious. But it's ok, we can mention people stating the obvious, just like we mention people pointing out that Elsevier publishes millions of junk papers to inflate their profits. Nemo 06:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Directory of Open Access Journals

{{Request edit|D|[see below]}}

Frontiers Media journals are indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Will editors consider adding that information to Frontiers_Media#Journal_indexing. I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect and implement on my behalf.

References

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Indexing in DOAJ is pretty trivial. Any OA journal that is not overtly predatory gets included. Just as we don't mention that journals are listed in Google or Google Scholar, we don't mention DOAJ in articles on publishers/journals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That's not correct. See also [1]. Nemo 10:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Let's see. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide largely reflect legacy myths about scholarly communication, for instance the idea that the impact factor as calculated by JCR is somehow relevant information on a journal or its contents. We could however add an "Abstracting and indexing" section with some aggregate information about inclusion in some of the sources mentioned over there. For instance, Scopus and WoS contain all sorts of unverifiable garbage and are heavily biased, so personally I refrain from using them as sources, but I won't object if someone adds information on how many Frontiers journals are listed there (all of them are, I presume). Nemo 10:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Randykitty and Nemo bis: Thank you both for your feedback. If you are interested in considering adding some of the other places where Frontiers journals are indexed, I have compiled the following for you:

• Frontiers has 48 journals listed in PubMed Central, 55 journals listed in Scopus, and 54 journals listed on Web of Science.

References

Also, per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide Nemo shared, maybe the "Journal indexing" heading could be changed to "Abstracting and indexing".

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Done but with an approximate number. It's not really relevant whether one has 51 or 57 journals in PMC. Sob, now I need to wash my fingers for having types WoS. Nemo 21:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Thanks for reviewing and adding these databases. JBFrontiers (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Number of staff

The number of employees in the infobox is five years out of date. Will editors consider updating it with the 2021 number of employees: 762. I appreciate that Wikipedia editors prefer secondary sources, but I ask if Frontiers' website is appropriate in this instance to verify an uncontroversial claim. WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Does that apply here? If not, in the absence of a suitable media source, what course of action would you recommend so as to make sure the page is accurate? I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect and implement on my behalf.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

References

This seems a sufficiently uncontroversial and objective change. I don't see "762" there though, only "over 750". I believe approximate numbers are better.

Does Frontiers, as a private company, not have some official filing, like an annual financial statement, that could be referenced for such things? (If so, Bloomberg didn't find it.) The definition of "employee" is sometimes fuzzy so it's good to reference an official figure if available. Nemo 20:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. The claims is not of extraordinary nature, so WP:PRIMARY applies in my estimation. Melmann 19:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Because of my conflict of interest, I prefer not to edit the article directly. However, given Melmann's explicit permission to do so in this case, I will update the number of employees in a few days as long as there are no other objections. Nemo, in response to your question, this is the best source I have for this information at this time. The top of the page says "over 750", but "762" is included a little lower on the page. JBFrontiers (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done per Melmann's permission above. JBFrontiers (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Intro edit

On August 14, User:Kenji1987 updated the introduction of this article with this edit.

• Replaced: In 2015, Frontiers Media was discussed by Retraction Watch and Jeffrey Beall; COPE and OASPA have retained Frontiers as a member after concerns were raised.
• With: In 2015, Frontiers Media was classified as a predatory publisher by Jeffrey Beall. COPE and OASPA have retained Frontiers as a member after concerns were raised.

It occurs to me that this edit introduced more POV than the previous version, and lacks the fuller context that appears later in the article, which states "Frontiers was added to librarian Jeffrey Beall's list of 'Potential, possible, or probable' predatory open-access publishers. The inclusion was met with backlash among some researchers." If the intro is to include Beall's list, it seems appropriate that it refer to the list as one of "potential, possible, or probable" predatory journals and include rebuttal, rather than state as verified fact. I look forward to hearing what others think.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I find "discussed" too vague. The point was that it was added on Jeffrey Beall's list of 'Potential, possible, or probable' predatory open-access publishers. Any other rewording is fine by me, but "discussed" does not cover it in my opinion. I am personally in favor of removing it from the lead, as the list is already defunct for several years. Kenji1987 (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I inserted the word "possible" before "predatory" as that is a more accurate description of the event. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kenji1987 and Anachronist: Thanks for offering feedback and editing the sentence. What do you think of adding mention that Frontiers' inclusion on Beall's list was met with backlash among some researchers, as verified in Nature and The Chronicle of Higher Education? If the intro is to include Beall's list, it seems appropriate to include the fuller context. In particular, I wonder if WP:IMPARTIAL applies here, as policy says "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." Thank you for your consideration. JBFrontiers (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Im in favour! Kenji1987 (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor too, if the complete context is added. The Chronicle piece makes Frontiers look like a heavy-handed thug who, unable to get what it wants, resorted to attacking Beall through his employer. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 hubs

I am here with a suggestion for Frontiers_Media#History. Last year, Tech Crunch reported on Frontiers' portal to match COVID-19 researchers to funding and the Coronavirus Knowledge Hub. Is it appropriate to add a sentence about these to this article?

Potential addition to Frontiers_Media#History: In March 2020, Frontiers Media launched a portal to connect SARS‑CoV‑2 and COVID-19 researchers with funding and the Coronavirus Knowledge Hub to provide people with links to access important research on symptoms, treatment, and transmission.

I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect and implement on my behalf.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

References

@JBFrontiers: Is there another reliable source for this sort of information that is independent of Frontiers Media? TechCrunch generally has a reputation for churnalism and it might not be great for showing that content is due in the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Thank you for looking into the request and I appreciate your guidance! This source mentions the knowledge hub, but I admit it is only mentioned in passing and is not ideal for this request. I had believed the TechCrunch article was appropriate because it was written by a news editor whose work has been cited on many articles across Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. JBFrontiers (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@JBFrontiers: Per WP:TECHCRUNCH, Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. My reading of that is that it appears to be based upon public relations material.

Regarding that other source from "Academic Insight", I really don't think that it adds any weight at all. Its "about us" page is literal filler text, its footer contains spelling errors "report a news" and "submit an information"(?!), and I can't find anything on its editorial policies. To be frank, it seems like a site used for SEO and advertising rather than news. I'm also seeing the site regularly appear to use images uncredited (can't link directly because of WP:COPYLINK but it should not be hard to find). This sort of highly questionable source should be heavily avoided on Wikipedia, especially when considering whether to incorporate information into an article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mikehawk10, I appreciate the feedback. Thank you for clarifying and looking into the request. I respect your decision. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Frontiers partnership in Saudi Arabia

Hello! May I ask if Wikipedia editors are willing to add a brief mention about Frontiers for Young Minds in Saudi Arabia? The initiative is the first of its kind in Arabic. I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect and implement on my behalf.

• King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) partnered with Frontiers Media to bring an Arabic version of Frontiers for Young Minds (FYM) to Saudi Arabia. As of August 2021 there were 500 FYM articles in English and 75 FYM articles in Arabic.

If editors agree this content is appropriate for the article, I believe Frontiers_Media#History is a good spot for it.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Article citation impact

Hello! May I ask if Wikipedia editors are willing to review this request for potential addition to the History section in the Frontiers Media article? I am keen to read what others think.

• As of 2021 Frontiers Media journals reportedly had an average of 3.65 citations per article, ranked 4th in citation impact out of the 20 largest academic journals.

I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect and implement on my behalf. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References

• We don't do this for any publisher, so I don't see why we should do it here. There's a gazillion different metrics out there, but we only report impact factors (in the articles on journals), because, like it or not, that's the statistic that researchers look at most. Nobody is interested in publisher-wide metrics. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, this is a pretty odd source to suggest citing for this information. Looking at the google translate version Articles published in Frontiers journals receive an average of 3.65 citations, the 4th highest average citation rate among the 20 largest academic journal publishers in the world. it looks to be have been copied and pasted from the Frontiers blog Among the world’s 20 largest publishers in 2017, Frontiers ranks 4th most-cited with an average of 3.65 citations per article. SmartSE (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty and SmartSE, Thank you for looking into the request and for the explanation. I respect your decision. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section organization?

I was struck by the sprawl of the controversies section, which is organized chronologically but not type. As I know this page is watched carefully, and a Frontiers representative is regularly active, I thought I would first ask here if the proposed minor subsection headings would be appreciated? As the section stands now, it is a bit of a wall of jumbled topics. I've pasted the proposed subsections and content sorted within below, and added a small blurb to improve flow, and ensure balance. [EDIT 21/2/2022: I removed the copy/paste to save space since the content organization it is now part of the article directly.]

Crawdaunt (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of making this edit. Feel free to undo and/or comment here if there is an issue. Crawdaunt (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian Scientific Index mention in article heading paragraph

The introductory section of the article reads: "As of 2021, several Frontiers Media journals were selected for inclusion in the Norwegian Scientific Index (most at level 1, standard academic)[9] or MEDLINE.[10]"

It's noteworthy that the MDPI Wikipedia page has a major section on criticism by the Norwegian Scientific Index. Following the cited link to the Kanal register for Frontiers Media, there are 6/96 journals with a Level 0 rating (does not meet Level 1 standard). There are also two journals with Level 2 (leaders in their subject/field). For context, BMC (a less controversial publisher) has a rate of Level 0/X journals of <1% and a number of journals with Level 2 status, while MDPI has a rate of Level 0/X ratings more similar to Frontiers (~5%) and no journals at Level 2 status. There is a major discussion on the MDPI page regarding criticism by the Norwegian Index. Important context: the Norwegian Index explicitly mentioned MDPI in their justification for creating the Level X distinction. [Vi innfører nivå X for tvilsomme tidsskrifter]

Here the reporting of the Norwegian Index is phrased in a way to suggest that Frontiers is well-regarded overall. This is a matter of opinion and framing. For instance: "it's good for a publisher to have ~95% of journals Level 1+ rating" vs. "it's bad that a publisher has a ~5% rate of journals not meeting Level 1." I think this is legitimately grey area here, as a couple factors distinguish Frontiers from MDPI re: the Norwegian index. 1) MDPI was specifically referenced by the index in the creation of its Level X tier. 2) Frontiers has a couple journals reaching Level 2 on the index, indicating good reputation in their field.

With all that context:

Question: is the quoted sentence above re: 'most Frontiers journals are Level 1' appropriate?

My Answer: I think the current phrasing on the Frontiers page is a bit too positive. As the BMC and MDPI examples demonstrate, a comparable and largely non-controversial OA mega-publisher has a far lower rate of Level 0/X journals, while the Wiki page of a comparable and more-controversial OA mega-publisher cites the Norwegian index in a negative light for similar rates of Level 0/X journals. Again grey area re: Frontiers boasting Level 2 etc. Separately, following the reference to MEDLINE, only seven Frontiers journals are listed, while the Norwegian Index has 96 listed. I don't think that's especially systematic... I would simply remove this sentence from the article.

I thought it would be good to have a clarified discussion here to ensure that different standards are not being used across pages. It's a fairly minor edit really, but I think it bears on a significant Wikipedia editorial consistency concern. Thanks for thoughts and commentary. Crawdaunt (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

For now I have taken the liberty of making this proposed edit (removing the sentence). Please feel free to directly undo if you disagree, and also comment here with reasoning. For now I have made this edit to better balance the general sense of positive/neutral/negative assessment provided by the Norwegian index across publisher pages. Crawdaunt (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate sentence

Greeting editors. I would appreciate your help with redundancy in the article. I ask if editors could please remove the repeated statement from the History section and merge it with the Controversies, Editorial Concerns section as highlighted below.

• Remove from the History section: Collaboration between the Nature Publishing Group and Frontiers ended when the two groups decided in November 2014 "to make a clean separation and never to mention again that Nature Publishing Group has some kind of involvement in Frontiers."
• Merge with Controversies, Editorial Concerns section: 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."

References

I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect and implement on my behalf. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done. JBFrontiers, I left a shortened sentence in the History section about the end of the partnership. I think this amount of redundancy is worthwhile to the reader, though I agree we can leave most of the details to the Controversy section. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers: Thank you, I appreciate your assistance. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead and Beall

BigAndi (talk · contribs) wants to expand the lead from

In 2015, Frontiers Media was classified as a possible predatory publisher by Jeffrey Beall. COPE and OASPA have retained Frontiers as a member after concerns were raised..

to

In 2015, Frontiers Media was classified as a possible predatory publisher by Jeffrey Beall. COPE and OASPA have retained Frontiers as a member after concerns were raised.. Beall faced criticism over transparency and legal threats. In 2017 the list was discontinued.

Given that this is not an article about Beall, I don't consider this appropriate for the lead. The legal pressure etc... is covered later in the article, in Frontiers_Media#Inclusion_in_Beall's_list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Headbomb, this article is not about Beall and discussion of Beal belongs in the body of the article, not the lead. --Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Headbomb. Perspectives beyond the straight facts should only be found in the body. That edit is also more about Beall than Frontiers. --Crawdaunt (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 update to List of journals & Infobox

Greetings, May I ask if editors are willing to review the following requests to update the Infobox and List of journals section? Crawdaunt, you recently edited the Frontiers Media article, are you available?

• Might an editor replace the number of employees in the Infobox to reflect the current 2022 amount of 1,400 employees? This source is currently cited in the live article: The Next Frontier from Forbes.
• Might an editor consider adding to the List of journals section? Frontiers Media acquired its first proprietary reviews journal, Oncology Reviews, from PAGEPress in 2022.

I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect and implement on my behalf. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Hi JBFrontiers. I have made the requested edits. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Crawdaunt: Thank you, I appreciate your assistance. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Crawdaunt: Hey there, sorry for bothering you. As a fellow edit request reviewer, i just wanted to tell you that, if you implement a request, modify the request template as accepted (in this particular case, just add |A), like i just did. This way, it will no longer be present in the (extremely bloated) category for requests pending review. Good luck, and keep going! Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Will be sure to in the future. Crawdaunt (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 History updates

Greetings, May I ask if editors are willing to review recent news coverage focused on Frontiers Media for potential inclusion in this article's History section? I have listed the articles and requests below.

• Please consider adding Frontiers Media historical background from the recent Forbes article. If editors are so inclined please include:
  • Frontiers was founded in 2007 by Henry and Kamila Markram, two neuroscientists from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland.
  • As of 2021, there were around 176,000 editors worldwide. As of 2022, Frontiers employs more than 1,400 people in 14 countries. Frontiers has published over 300,000 articles that have been downloaded and viewed 1.6 billion times.

• At the end of the History section please consider the addition of the 2022 Open Letter published by Frontiers Policy Labs in collaboration with the World Economic Forum citing the Times Higher Education and the India Education Diary. Also, there are national publishing partnerships that could be included citing In Publishing and the of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. Also, would editors consider an addition of the Frontiers for Young Minds’ participation in the Dubai World Expo from the STM Publishing News article? If editors are so inclined please include the following:
  • In 2022 Frontiers Policy Labs published an open letter from Professor Ruth Morgan, Director of the UCL Centre for the Forensic Sciences in collaboration with the World Economic Forum Young Scientists calling for engagement between policymakers and scientists. The letter called for one million (around 10%) scientists to dedicate two hours per week to policy engagement, which would be 100 million hours over a year. The letter was signed by 52 scholars from academic institutions around the world including Yale University, the University of Hong Kong and ETH Zurich.
  • As of 2022, Frontiers has eight national publishing partnerships in Austria, Luxembourg, Norway, Qatar, Sweden, UK, Switzerland and Finland. Additionally Frontiers has ten consortia partnerships, including Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Austrian Science Fund [FWF] and the Luxembourg National Fund Frontiers’ which provides access to Frontiers services to around 600 individual institutions worldwide.
  • Frontiers for Young Minds collaborated with the Swiss School for Public Health and participated in the 2022 World Expo in Dubai. Frontiers presented a youth led live review of a science paper.

I am an employee at Frontiers Media. For this reason, I am posting this request for others to inspect and implement on my behalf. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Partly done. JBFrontiers, I have edited the part describing Frontiers' founding borrowing from your phrasing. Thank you for the new reference, as when I checked, the previous reference citing a 'group of neuroscientists' was no longer accessible (access date 2013). Frontiers' own history page suggests the Markrams are the key founders, so I modified accordingly. I included employee count across countries. I did not include the total articles statistics, as I did not find similar statements on other publisher Wiki pages, and I'm not sure this statistic is especially noteworthy re: WP:DUE. Employee count gives a sense of scope/size, which I included.

Regarding other points: main concern is WP:DUE regarding initiatives like e.g. Frontiers in Young Minds. Note to other editors: this topic was requested in Dec 2021 but no response was given. I suppose my immediate impression is that, while a fine initiative, this specific program is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things (500 articles total). A section, even a sentence might be undue weight re: WP:DUE. Perhaps if there was a section on public outreach a mention would fit? But I don't think it is a good fit for History. Checking other publisher Wiki articles briefly, it does not seem like some sort of 'Public Outreach' is a common section type. --Crawdaunt (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Since this request has been evaluated, per above, I am closing this request. Please add a new request if there are additional proposals to include in this article. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Online integrity hub tools

This month, Frontiers Media was noted in Nature for testing prototypes of tools meant to help publishers flag and reject fabricated scientific articles. Is it appropriate to add a few sentences about this to the Frontiers Media 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, as I have in the past.

Potential addition to Frontiers Media#History:

• As of 2022, Frontiers Media and other publishers were testing prototypes of tools for the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers' STM Integrity Hub, which assists publishers in checking for integrity-related issues with journal article submissions. These tools are meant to prevent fabricated scientific articles from being published.

References

I am keen to hear your thoughts.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done I tweaked the language to more closely reflect the article. PK650 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Blacklisted as a publisher

Is this worth mentioning? I think that this is the first time that the entire catalogue of a publishing house has been blacklisted.

"On January 3rd, Zhejiang Gonggong University (浙江工商大学), a public university in Hangzhou, announced that all the journals of the three largest Open Access (OA) publishing houses were blacklisted, including Hindawi (acquired by Wiley in early 2021), MDPI founded by a Chinese businessman Lin Shukun, and Frontiers, which has become very popular in recent years. The university issued a notice stating that articles published by Hindawi, MDPI and Frontiers will not be included in research performance statistics."

Source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/NO5By3PtF0XPwNxyKl8j1A

Jonathan O'Donnell (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Not the first time, but potentially notable. One of the Czech university's faculty of science is no longer counting MDPI publications for job performance etc... (can read on MDPI page).

Is this Chinese university notable in say... size or university rankings? Think that dictates how noteworthy this is. Crawdaunt (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)