Yes. Frontiers Media journals require peer review before publication, and Frontiers is not currently listed on Beall’s list or comparable predatory-publisher references. Frontiers also uses a distinctive review structure — a two-phase “collaborative review” model with direct author-reviewer interaction — that differs from the closed, purely correspondence-based review most publishers use, which is part of why the process gets scrutinized in the first place. Frontiers has also generated real, well-documented controversy: it was added to Jeffrey Beall’s predatory-publisher list in 2015, removed all 31 editors from two of its medical journals the same year after an editorial-independence dispute, and has published a number of high-profile flawed papers, including a 2024 AI-generated figure that circulated widely for its fabricated, anatomically nonsensical content. This page separates what’s documented from what’s often overstated in casual claims about Frontiers.
What Frontiers Is
Frontiers Media SA is a fully open-access academic publisher founded in 2007 by neuroscientists Kamila and Henry Markram, headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. It publishes several hundred peer-reviewed journals across the sciences, funded through article processing charges (APCs) rather than reader subscriptions — the same business model used by other large open-access publishers such as MDPI and Hindawi. Springer Nature’s parent, Nature Publishing Group (NPG), acquired a controlling interest in Frontiers in February 2013; that relationship ended in 2015 amid the editorial-independence dispute described below. Frontiers is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), both of which set conduct and membership standards for scholarly publishers.
How Frontiers’s Peer Review Process Works
Frontiers uses what it calls a “collaborative review” process, structured in two phases. In the independent review phase, an assigned handling editor and independent reviewers evaluate the manuscript separately, as in a conventional review process. In the interactive review phase, authors and reviewers are brought into a shared online forum where they can respond to each other’s comments directly and iterate on revisions in real time, rather than passing revisions back through an editor across sequential rounds. Frontiers states that reviewers’ identities are disclosed to authors during this interactive phase (not held anonymous the way single-anonymized review typically works), and reviewers who approve a published article are named on the final publication. A handling editor, not Frontiers staff, makes the final accept/reject decision. For the underlying vocabulary this page draws on — what “single-anonymized” and “open” review mean and how they differ — see CASRAI’s single-anonymized peer review entry and the ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 peer review terminology standard that formalized these terms.
The Documented Controversies
Several distinct episodes get conflated in casual claims about Frontiers. Treated separately, with what’s actually documented for each:
Beall’s List (2015)
Frontiers was added to Jeffrey Beall’s list of potentially predatory publishers in October 2015. Frontiers publicly disputed the listing; the following year it pressed the University of Colorado Denver to have Beall retract the characterization. Beall’s blacklist was taken down entirely in January 2017, with reporting at the time citing pressure from Frontiers, among other factors, as part of the context for that shutdown. Frontiers has not appeared on directly comparable successor predatory-publisher lists since.
The 2015 Editorial Board Removal
In May 2015, Frontiers removed the entire editorial boards — 31 editors in total — of two of its medical titles, Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. The editors involved said Frontiers staff had interfered with editorial decisions in ways that violated core principles of editorial independence in medical publishing, and some editors reported the dispute had already driven prior resignations from Frontiers journals. Frontiers’s own public position was that it was defending distributed editorial governance against a faction of editors. Nature Publishing Group ended its ownership stake and collaboration with Frontiers that same year. This episode is specific to two medical journals in 2015, not a claim about Frontiers’s several-hundred-journal portfolio today.
Rejection Rates and Acceptance-Rate Criticism
Frontiers has faced sustained, recurring criticism — including reporting on individual editors describing pressure over rejection rates — that its editorial incentive structure favors acceptance, given that revenue is tied to published articles under the APC model. This is a structural criticism that applies, to varying degrees, to every APC-funded open-access publisher, not a finding unique to Frontiers, but it has been raised about Frontiers specifically and repeatedly enough to be worth naming directly rather than waving away.
High-Profile Flawed Publications
Frontiers journals have published and later retracted or corrected a number of specific articles that drew significant outside scrutiny, including papers making scientifically discredited claims (such as HIV/AIDS denialism and vaccine-autism links) and, in February 2024, a Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology paper containing AI-generated figures with fabricated, anatomically nonsensical content that circulated widely before the article was retracted. Isolated flawed publications occur at journals across the industry and are not, on their own, evidence that a publisher lacks peer review generally — but the volume and profile of these specific Frontiers episodes is well documented and is a legitimate part of why the publisher draws more scrutiny than most.
Is Frontiers a Predatory Publisher?
By the definitions used across the field — see CASRAI’s predatory journal entry — a predatory journal is characterized by the absence of genuine peer review behind a publication-fee business model, typically combined with deceptive practices about editorial boards, indexing, or fees. Frontiers does not meet that definition on the current record: it operates a disclosed, structured review process, it is not on Beall’s list or its direct continuation, and it maintains COPE and OASPA membership. At the same time, Frontiers is a publisher with a genuinely more contested reputation than most large open-access publishers, driven by real, specific, documented episodes — the 2015 Beall’s list listing and editorial-board removal, and a pattern of high-profile flawed publications including the 2024 AI-figure case. Both things can be true: real peer review is happening, and Frontiers has also generated more legitimate scrutiny of its editorial rigor than most comparably sized publishers.
How to Verify Peer Review Status for Any Journal
The Frontiers-specific facts above answer this one publisher’s case, but the more durable skill is knowing how to check any journal yourself. CASRAI’s How to Know If an Article Is Peer Reviewed guide walks through the concrete checks: journal website disclosure of review policy, indexing in recognized databases, editorial board verifiability, and publisher membership in COPE/OASPA/DOAJ. See also CASRAI’s guides on two other frequently-questioned large publishers, Is MDPI Peer Reviewed? and Is Taylor & Francis Peer Reviewed?, and the guide to identifying predatory journals and publishers, which covers the warning signs that distinguish a genuinely predatory operation from a legitimate publisher that draws criticism.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Frontiers a legitimate publisher?
Yes, by the standard markers used to assess publisher legitimacy: it operates a disclosed peer review process, is a COPE and OASPA member, and is not on Beall’s list or comparable current predatory-publisher references. It is also a publisher with a more contested reputation than most, driven by specific, well-documented episodes, both facts can be true together.
Was Frontiers ever classified as predatory?
Yes, in the sense that it was added to Jeffrey Beall’s list of potentially predatory publishers in October 2015. Frontiers disputed the listing, and Beall’s blacklist was taken offline entirely in January 2017; pressure from Frontiers was reported at the time as part of the context for that shutdown. It has not appeared on directly comparable successor lists since.
What happened with Frontiers’s editorial boards in 2015?
Frontiers removed all 31 editors from two medical journals, Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, after a dispute over editorial independence. Nature Publishing Group, which had held a controlling stake in Frontiers since 2013, ended that relationship the same year.
What is “collaborative review” at Frontiers?
It’s Frontiers’s two-phase peer review model: an independent review phase where reviewers assess the manuscript separately, followed by an interactive phase where authors and reviewers communicate directly in a shared online forum to resolve issues, rather than passing revisions through an editor across sequential closed rounds.
Is Frontiers’s high acceptance rate a sign it isn’t rigorous?
Frontiers has faced recurring criticism, including from some of its own former editors, that its APC-funded revenue model creates pressure toward acceptance. That’s a structural critique that applies in some degree to any APC-funded open-access publisher, but it has been raised about Frontiers specifically and repeatedly, and is a legitimate factor to weigh alongside a specific journal’s editorial board and track record.
What was the 2024 Frontiers AI figure controversy?
In February 2024, a paper in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology was published containing AI-generated figures depicting anatomically nonsensical, fabricated imagery. It drew widespread public attention before being retracted, and is frequently cited as an example of insufficient editorial scrutiny at the figure-review stage.
