Understanding the Credibility of Frontiers in Nutrition
Determining the credibility of any academic journal, especially an open-access one, requires a multi-faceted approach. On one hand, Frontiers publishing, which includes the journal Frontiers in Nutrition, presents strong metrics and a transparent peer-review model. On the other hand, the publisher has faced significant criticism and accusations of having predatory-like qualities. Navigating this complexity is key for researchers looking to publish and readers seeking reliable information.
The Case for Credibility: Robust Metrics and Systems
Supporters of Frontiers point to several indicators that suggest a high level of academic rigor and credibility. The publisher emphasizes its large editorial boards, comprising over 250,000 editors, who are presented as established members of the research community. They also highlight their prominent indexing in major academic databases like Web of Science and Scopus. Specifically for Frontiers in Nutrition, official figures boast a solid impact factor, with one source citing a 2024 value of 4.291 and another noting a 2023 impact factor of 4.0. The journal is also a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which signals a commitment to ethical publishing standards.
Furthermore, Frontiers has implemented technological measures to enhance research integrity. Its AI-powered integrity tool, AIRA, performs automated checks for issues like plagiarism and image manipulation before the peer-review process even begins. This is complemented by a single-anonymized peer-review model, where the names of endorsing reviewers are revealed upon publication to promote accountability.
The Case for Caution: Criticisms and Concerns
Despite the positive indicators, Frontiers and Frontiers in Nutrition are not without significant critics. One of the most long-standing criticisms stems from its past inclusion on Jeffrey Beall's list of potential predatory publishers, an inclusion that was controversial and eventually removed under pressure. More recently, academic communities and institutions have expressed ongoing reservations.
For example, some European academic groups, such as the Norwegian Scientific Index, have assigned Frontiers journals low ratings, deeming them "not academic". In 2023, Zhejiang Gongshang University in China announced it would no longer include articles from Frontiers journals when evaluating researcher performance. Major concerns often center around the editorial process, with critics noting the high volume of publications and the substantial authority granted to associate editors in accepting manuscripts. This raises questions about the thoroughness of the peer review, especially when combined with sometimes rapid acceptance times.
Specific instances of retractions and controversial publications also fuel skepticism. High-profile retractions due to issues like peer-review manipulation, falsified data, and authorship policy breaches have occurred across Frontiers journals, including some impacting Frontiers in Nutrition. While retractions happen in all journals, the frequency and nature of the problems have raised flags about the underlying quality control.
How to Evaluate Frontiers in Nutrition
For any academic journal, it is important to look beyond just the impact factor. Here is a checklist for evaluating an article from Frontiers in Nutrition:
- Review the Editorial Board: Are the editors and reviewers listed upon publication well-respected and known in their specific field?
- Examine the Peer Review Report: Some reviewers' names are published, and the review process is collaborative. While not public, the process's transparent nature should, in theory, lead to better articles.
- Consider the Context: Is the research question valid and is the methodology sound? Critically evaluate the study design and data to see if it stands up to scrutiny.
- Check for Retractions: A quick search on Retraction Watch or the journal's site can confirm if the article has an accompanying retraction notice or expression of concern.
- Look at the Citations: While Frontiers is highly cited, assess the citation context. Are articles cited predominantly within other Frontiers journals (a potential red flag), or broadly across different reputable journals?
Comparison: Frontiers in Nutrition vs. Traditional Reputable Journal
| Feature | Frontiers in Nutrition | Traditional Reputable Journal (e.g., AJCN) |
|---|---|---|
| Access Model | Open access (Gold standard) with Article Processing Charges (APCs) | Subscription-based (typically), some open access options, may use APCs |
| Peer Review | Transparent, single-anonymized, collaborative model; relies heavily on associate editors | Blind peer review (often double-blind); managed by a smaller, more centralized editorial team |
| Reputation | Mixed; recognized metrics but noted for controversies and questionable practices | Established and widely trusted; fewer systemic integrity issues reported |
| Review Speed | Known for being relatively fast (~90 days) | Typically slower due to more rigorous, multi-stage review processes |
| Editorial Control | Decentralized; Associate Editors can accept articles once minimal reviewer endorsement is met | More centralized control, often with final decision authority resting with a Chief Editor |
Conclusion: A Complex Verdict
Ultimately, the question of whether Is Frontiers in Nutrition credible? does not have a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. It is a nuanced issue that depends on a balanced perspective. The journal holds a place in major indexing databases, boasts a reasonable impact factor, and uses technology to support its peer-review process. These are all positive signs that indicate a degree of academic standing. However, the publisher's history of controversies, including peer-review manipulation and retractions, raises valid concerns among parts of the scientific community. The varying reception of Frontiers among institutions, such as the warnings from Norwegian and Chinese universities, adds another layer of complexity. Readers and authors must perform their own due diligence, evaluating each article on its scientific merits rather than blindly trusting the journal's masthead. For a critical look at publishing irregularities, including those at Frontiers, the website Retraction Watch provides valuable context and information on specific cases.
