Critical Review of ''Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine'' [Neurosurgery Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Critical Review of ''Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine'' ======

===== 📄 Journal Overview =====
  * **Publisher**: Frontiers Media SA (Switzerland)
  * **First published**: 2014
  * **Open access**: Yes (CC-BY license)
  * **Indexing**: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ
  * **Recent metrics**:
    * Impact Factor (2023): ~2.8 (dropped from ~5.3 in 2022)
    * CiteScore: ~5.5
    * SJR: ~0.86 (Q2 in cardiology)

===== 🟢 Strengths =====
  * **Broad scope**: covers basic, clinical, translational, and neuro-cardiology.
  * **Immediate access**: all articles are free to read and reuse.
  * **Rapid review process**: first decision typically in ~77 days.
  * **Ethical framework**: COPE member; promotes transparency and data reproducibility.

===== 🔴 Criticisms =====
  * **Editorial independence issues**:  
    2015 resignations over editorial decisions overridden by Frontiers staff.
  * **Questionable peer review past**:  
    Historic concerns about reviewer limitations and rejection mechanisms.
  * **Predatory label controversy**:  
    Previously listed in Beall’s List (now defunct); still viewed as “grey-zone” by some institutions.
  * **High volume, variable quality**:  
    Massive growth in special issues and output may dilute editorial standards.
  * **Volatile impact factor**:  
    Sharp drop in IF suggests instability and potential loss of citation influence.

===== 🧭 Final Assessment =====
^ Area ^ Evaluation ^
| Accessibility & Indexing | ✅ Strong visibility and indexing |
| Peer Review & Editorial Standards | ⚠️ Mixed history; improved structure, but past concerns remain |
| Prestige & Reputation | ❓ Controversial; varies by institution |
| Publication Strategy | 📈 Good for mid-tier research needing reach; not ideal for top-impact work |

===== 💡 Conclusion =====
''Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine'' offers excellent exposure and open-access publishing, but carries historical baggage regarding editorial integrity and quality control. Recommended with caution for standard work; **not ideal for high-impact, cutting-edge research**.