Frontiers in Sociology

I have always been curious about Frontiers journals, as they present themselves as part of a new generation of journals that promise open science and more transparent peer review. Given that they charge publication fees, I was initially skeptical, despite seeing some colleagues publish with them. Recently, I had the opportunity to serve as a reviewer for Frontiers in Sociology, which gave me the chance to evaluate the journal firsthand.

The paper I reviewed had significant methodological flaws, including issues with data sources, analysis, and unsupported conclusions. It also lacked both a discussion and conclusion section. I provided a detailed review by outlining these shortcomings with evidence from the paper, and ultimately recommended its rejection.

However, after the reviews were finalized, I saw the feedback from the other three reviewers. Shockingly, they suggested either acceptance or only minor revisions, with some claiming that the discussion section was excellent even though the paper didn’t have one! This led me to believe that these reviewers hadn’t read the paper thoroughly, if at all. Worse still, it seemed like the editor also didn’t have a look at the paper or the reviewers’ comments closely. The entire process, from submission to publication, took about two months, which raised even more concerns about the rigor of their review process.

Based on this experience, I now believe that paper quality can vary significantly in Frontiers in Sociology, and likely in other Frontiers journals, as well. It seems that, in the interest of rapid turnaround and potentially for monetary reasons, quality control is often overlooked.