![]() Visit to find out more.įrontiers Discover also allows our editors to maintain control of the peer review process. Support their colleagues, and the community, by offering to review these submissionsĬontribute as a reviewer when it's convenient to them. Identify submissions that match their expertise That's why we built Frontiers Discover - a platform that enables Frontiers' review editors to:īrowse manuscripts that have been submitted to our journals And the way researchers are invited to review can be inefficient. We know researchers' time to contribute by engaging in peer review is limited. We continuously innovate to provide cutting-edge tools and services for an efficient peer review.Īll submissions, including those that are part of themed Research Topic article collections, undergo the same rigorous review process. To achieve this, we developed a unique, award-winning collaborative review forum that unites authors, reviewers, and the handling editor online and brings the highest quality service to all participants. ![]() Last, but not least, the process needs to be efficient. It should be rigorous, fair, constructive, accountable, and transparent for everyone involved. We believe peer review must be centered on objective criteria for the validity and quality of the work presented. Peer review is handled by active researchers, carefully appointed to our editorial boards according to strict excellence criteria, and who certify the validity of research with their names on the published article. Our collaborative peer review process maximizes quality while ensuring researchers' rights to submit their work for a rigorous, constructive, and transparent review. Review information published: reviewer identities, editor identitiesĪverage time from submission to final decision: 61 days Reviewers interact with the handling editor and the authors Identity transparency: single anonymized: reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to the decision-making editor Two phases: independent review and interactive, collaborative review Rigorous, constructive, efficient, and transparent ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |