====== 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**.