Frontiers in surgery [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 surgery ======


📉 Journal Profile & Positives

Open-access surgical megajournal with a 1.8 IF and 3.3 CiteScore, indexed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science 


Covers all surgical specialties under one umbrella, offering quick and broad dissemination 


Backed by Frontiers Media, a major Swiss OA publisher and COPE member 


⚠️ Critical Concerns

1. Portfolio Publishing Strategy
Like MDPI, Frontiers operates as a large “megajournal” platform. Critics argue that reputational issues in one part can taint the entire portfolio 


2. Editorial Autonomy & Peer Review
Accusations of publisher interference—e.g., Frontiers removed entire editorial boards after disputes over rejections 
predatoryjournals.org

Reports that reviewers and editors feel pressured by automated systems or high acceptance targets:

“They just use an ‘AI’ to spam out requests for reviewers. The editors don’t even have a say…” 
reddit.com

Accusations of a 90% acceptance rate, implying minimal scrutiny .

3. Predatory Publishing Allegations
Added to Beall’s List in 2015, citing weak peer review, editorial manipulation, and aggressive self-promotion 


Multiple controversies: questionable retractions, conspiracy theory papers, and AI-generated figures slipping through 
en.wikipedia.org

4. Reproducibility & Quality
Broader literature flags megajournals for low reproducibility and superficial review processes 

In clinical fields, this poses serious risks if flawed studies influence practice.

🚨 Overall Risk Assessment

Pros:

Good indexing, open access, and broad scope.

Cons:

Questionable rigor in peer review.

Heavy publisher influence on editorial decisions.

Credibility concerns stemming from predatory-publisher allegations.

Reputation inadequately robust for high-stakes clinical research.

💡 Final Take

Frontiers in Surgery may be a pragmatic choice for rapid publication and broad visibility—but it carries non-trivial risks regarding editorial independence, scientific rigor, and long-term credibility. In fields like neurosurgery, where patient outcomes and professional recognition matter deeply, both authors and readers should approach its content with heightened scrutiny.