Talk:Frontiers Media

Suggested source
https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/reflections-on-guest-editing-a-frontiers-journal and references therein should probably be included in the article. I don't have time to at the moment so am leaving it here for discussion, in the hopes that someone else might beat me to it, and if not that I will have this note to come back to. -Pengortm (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it would also be great to mention to the problem of the definition of predatory publishing as it is quite debated and it is hard to defend against something, if the definition is unclear. This article here makes many interesting points:
 * Predatory journals: no definition, no defence
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y
 * I had colleagues at my university who deemed all authors in FrontiersIn Journals as fake scientists after reading the Wikipedia Article. While this may or may not be true, the process to determine this judgement should be done by committees on scientific fraud, but not as a result of reading the FrontiersIn article in Wikipedia. Therefore, I think the article should have a very neutral stance to problematize the issue, disclose all the arguments and leave the final call to the respective authorities. Maybe one should also mention that essentially all scientific institutions have mechanisms to deal with scientific fraud and that they are responsible and capable to deal with such issues. After all, the issue is complex and one should grant the benefit of the doubt. If people agree with this line of thought, I'd be glad to propose a few lines to adjust the stance of the article. In its present form, it may lead senior researchers to discriminate against junior researchers (e.g. in search committees) with few publications and one in FrontiersIn and might not even be aware of the controversy (as it is the case in many fields of medicine where FrontiersIn has a good reputation in several subfields.
 * BigAndi (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove "List of Frontiers Journals" section
A recent discussion on the wiki page List of MDPI academic journals made me conscious of a number of Wikipedia principles that sort of conflict with just having a systematic list of journals from a given publisher? Per WP:NOTADVERT, Wikipedia shouldn't just be an extension of the topic's own website. There's also a bit of a WP:DUE issue here with the size of the journal list section on this page, as it seems to take up nearly half the page.

I might propose to simply include a link to the Frontiers website page listing Frontiers journals: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals. This link, with a bit of preamble, could just be pasted into the current section "List of Journals" replacing the huge text block that takes up much of the page just listing journals.

As there are a few sporadic journals with their own Wikipedia entries (e.g. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine), perhaps these could be listed at the end of the article in a "See Also" section? -- Crawdaunt (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No, these list are too massive for a see also section and are best as standalone articles, like every other publisher lists we have. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. So then a solution might be to create a separate "List of Frontiers Media academic journals" article? The concern remains that the list on this page takes up half the page, effectively splitting the article re: WP:DUE. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This was rejected at AFD in favour of an in article list. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The AfD outcome was "no consensus", with !votes split between "keep" and "merge". That was in March 2018, almost 5 years ago, so I see no problem with discussing that issue again. I !voted "merge" in that AfD discussion, but by now a stand-alone article makes sense, too. --Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to open the discussion (and see it is here). I agree with a stand-alone article.Karlaz1 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Although a stand-alone article would be okay, so would the link to Frontiers journals that Crawdaunt originally mentioned - but it can't stay like this, with a huge list as part of the article, it's a mess. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, what if we just restrict the list to notable journals (those that have their own Wikipedia pages at this point) and also give a link to the Frontiers website page listing? That would make this list much more relevant and to the point. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It would cheapen the list by being incomplete. This is a collection of a hundred or so journals, each of those without full articles redirecting here. They are not a mega publisher with a portfolio of thousands that needs to be pared down to only notable entries. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

When I suggested just the link, I was going off WP:NOTMIRROR logic. But @Headbomb pointed out there is a whole category of lists of lists of academic journals.

I would favour a new article that is just the list of Frontiers journals, with some small context added in introduction. And then a "see also" or other outward link to the article listing Frontiers Journals.

The current list within the Frontiers article is definitely too much IMO. Crawdaunt (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm good with that. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So I see there was actually a relative consensus on this that everyone felt a new "List of Frontiers Media academic journals" article was appropriate. I've just declared COI (see below), so I am not the one to incorporate those changes - not without an endorsement to do so by the community at least. @Randykitty@Headbomb@Karlaz1@Qflib if any of you would be willing to take up the task? Or if you feel like I have been editing in good faith, and trust that I will continue to do so, I could take a stab at it and then tag you on the new page and the current edits to review them. Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Declaring COI
Hi all,

I believe I have developed a formal conflict of interest to declare, and will not make any further direct edits to this or related pages for the time. Reading the WP:COI page, I was surprised to see that it mostly addressed financial COI, which I do not have. However, I am lead author on a recent preprint that is very closely tied to the page. Again I have no financial interest involved (and no funding to declare for that work, which was voluntary).

You can find the preprint at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15884

Hope it's interesting for the folks here also because... well... it was a lot of work to take a very thorough review of the state of publishing! If an author summary is more your style, I'd encourage reading the thread on Mastodon for highlights.

Cheers,

Mark -- Crawdaunt (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Frontiers, MDPI, Hindawi, blacklisted from Malaysia
Bringing to attention of page.

https://tuoitre-vn.translate.goog/3-nha-xuat-ban-lon-vao-danh-sach-den-20230927113809178.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)