Frontiers in Public Health [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.
====== Frontiers in Public Health ======

**Journal:** Frontiers in Public Health  
**Publisher:** Frontiers Media S.A.  
**ISSN:** 2296-2565  
**Open Access:** Yes (Gold OA, author-pays model)  
**Impact Factor (2025):** ~4.5  
**Scope:** Multidisciplinary journal covering all aspects of public health, including epidemiology, health policy, global health, occupational health, and digital health.

===== 🧪 Strengths =====

  * **Wide visibility and rapid publication:** Articles are freely available and often indexed quickly, which can help disseminate findings in real time.
  * **Multidisciplinary reach:** Encourages submissions from across fields (economics, epidemiology, digital health), which fosters cross-sector dialogue.
  * **Thematic flexibility:** The journal accommodates emerging public health topics (COVID-19, AI in health systems, climate change) more readily than traditional outlets.

===== ⚠️ Critical Weaknesses =====

==== 1. **Editorial Volume vs. Rigor** ====
- The journal publishes **hundreds of articles per month**, which raises serious concerns about editorial selectivity.
- The review process is often **accelerated** and **editor-driven**, with an emphasis on "collaborative" review that may discourage rejection and encourage compromise.

==== 2. **Thematic Inflation and Policy-Friendliness** ====
- A large portion of articles serve more as **policy cheerleading** than critical analysis — praising reforms, digital tools, or systems with **little concern for unintended consequences** or **confounders**.
- **Quantitative noise** is common: statistical methods are used to dress up simplistic or tautological claims.

==== 3. **Lack of Conceptual Depth** ====
- Many papers use high-volume administrative data to draw **shallow conclusions** (e.g., “costs decreased” or “efficiency improved”) without exploring mechanisms, clinical nuance, or ethical trade-offs.
- **Qualitative understanding** — the kind that actually informs patient care or structural reform — is often missing.

==== 4. **Pay-to-Publish Model and Conflicts of Interest** ====
- As with all Frontiers journals, authors pay **article processing charges (APCs)** to publish.
- This model may create **perverse incentives** for editorial teams to **accept more articles** to sustain revenue.
- Guest-edited Research Topics are often **populated by contributor networks**, not necessarily by independent or critical peers.

===== 🧮 Summary Table =====

| **Aspect**                    | **Assessment**                                                  |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Scientific Rigor              | Variable; many papers lack mechanistic depth                    |
| Peer Review Quality           | Rapid, often superficial, author-friendly                      |
| Editorial Selectivity         | Low; high acceptance rate and article volume                    |
| Use of Statistics             | Often decorative, lacking causal validation                     |
| Role in Academia              | Growing in volume, declining in prestige                        |
| Best Use Case                 | Preliminary studies, policy opinions, or data visualizations    |
| Risk                          | Dilutes scientific discourse by blurring the line between science and advocacy |

===== 🧠 Final Verdict =====

*Frontiers in Public Health* embodies the paradox of modern open-access publishing: **accessible but inflated, fast but shallow, prolific but uncritical**. While it serves as a platform for public health communication and visibility, it often falls short of **scientific rigor, critical depth, and editorial integrity**.

Researchers — especially clinicians and decision-makers — should approach its content with **discerning skepticism**.