Frontier Scientific Publishing operates a rigorous peer-review process. In most cases this is a single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and special issue topics, and new Editorial Board members.
Immediately after submission, this check is initially carried out by the managing editor to assess:
The Academic Editor, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, or the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board Member in case of a conflict of interest, will be notified of the submission and invited to check and recommend reviewers.
The process is single-blind for most journals, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, but the reviewer knows the identity of the author. Some journals operate double-blind peer review.
At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. Suggestions of reviewers can be made by the academic editor during pre-check. Alternatively, Frontier Scientific Publishing editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board Members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.
The following checks are applied to all reviewers:
To assist academic editors, Frontier Scientific Publishing staff handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor; however, Academic Editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time. Reviewers are given two weeks to write their review. For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within three days. In both cases, extensions can be granted on request.
A paper can only be accepted for publication by an academic editor. Employed Frontier Scientific Publishing staff can only reject papers: it would create a clear conflict of interest if they were permitted to accept a paper as their salary is paid for by the APC of accepted articles.
Frontier Scientific Publishing journals operate an open peer review option, meaning that the authors have the option to publish the review reports and author responses with the published paper (often referred to as open reports). In addition, reviewers may choose to sign their reports if the review is published, in which case the reviewer name appears on the review report (referred to as open identity). The default option is for reviewers to remain anonymous and for reports not to be published, reviewers and authors respectively must opt into this option. If an article is rejected no details will be published. Open peer review has the benefit of increasing transparency about the review process and providing further information about the paper for interested readers and we encourage authors to choose open review.
Acceptance decisions on manuscripts, after peer review, are made by an academic editor, either the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board member. When making an editorial decision, we expect that the academic editor checks the following:
The editor can select from: accept, reject, ask author for revision, ask for an additional reviewer.
If there is any suspicion that a paper may contain plagiarism, the editorial office will check using the industry standard iThenticate software.
Reviewers make recommendations, and Editors-in-Chief are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision, for the benefit of the authors.
Editorial independence is extremely important and Frontier Scientific Publishing does not interfere with editorial decisions. In particular, no paper is published without the agreement of an academic editor and Frontier Scientific Publishing staff do not advise academic editors about accepting or rejecting articles.
In cases where only minor revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring to the external editor. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after author revision, dependent on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version and the wishes of the Academic editor. Apart from in exceptional circumstances, we allow a maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript.
Frontier Scientific Publishing carries out production on all manuscripts, including language editing, copy editing and conversion to XML. Language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff. In the small number of cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, we charge authors an additional fee (with authors’ prior approval). The authors are also free to use other English editing service, or consult a native English-speaking colleague—the latter being our preferred option.
Frontier Scientific Publishing follow the following guidelines and standards for its journals:
ICMJE: Medically related FSP journals follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The guidelines comprehensively cover all aspects of editing, from how the journal is managed to details about peer review and handling complaints. The majority of the recommendations are not specific to medical journals and are followed by all Frontier Scientific Publishing journals.
TOP covers transparency and openness in the reporting of research. Our journals aim to be at level 1 or 2 for all aspects of TOP. Specific requirements vary between journals and can be requested from the editorial office.
Compliance with the standards and guidelines above will be taken into account during the final decision and any discrepancies should be clearly explained by the authors. We recommend that authors highlight relevant guidelines in their cover letter.
The Frontier Science Publishing values the integrity of academic activities and the completeness of academic achievement records, ensuring that academic papers are kept as recordable and unchanging as they are published. However, it is difficult to find out the individual non-normative phenomena in the manuscript or the inattention of the author, even if carefully reviewed by the editor. Therefore, correcting academic records is sometimes necessary. The decision to change the record is of great importance, and the publisher will take different measures based on the article's situation, roughly in the following forms:
1. Expression problem
2. Correction (error in the layout or error in the content)
All of the above measures are aimed at correcting the article and reminding the reader, but not punishing the author. In the articles published in the journals, there are intentional or unintentional irregularities, the editors of the journals have the responsibility of supervising the review, and the review process should involve the authors and reviewers. The editor will follow the publisher's retraction guidelines and other acceptable academic principles to select the best solution to the problem.
If the author is actively asking for action, the author will not be required to pay additional fees. If the measures taken (such as retraction) are not initiated by the author, or only the unilateral action of the author before the both sides reached an agreement, the publisher does not need to compensate the author for economic losses, and the article's page fee cannot be returned to the author.