📉 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.