Rigorous, constructive, efficient and transparent
Two phases: independent review and interactive and collaborative review
Reviewers and the editor responsible for all published articles
Average time from submission to final decision: 61 days
How it works
Our collaborative peer review process maximizes quality while ensuring the rights of researchers to submit their work for rigorous, constructive, and transparent review.
Peer review is carried out by active researchers, carefully appointed to our editorial boards according to strict criteria of excellence, and who certify the validity of the research with their names in the published article.
We believe that peer review should focus on objective criteria of validity and quality of the work submitted. It must be rigorous, fair, constructive, accountable and transparent to all involved. Last but not least, the process must be efficient.
To achieve this, we have developed a unique and award-winning collaborative review forum that brings together authors, reviewers and the responsible online publisher and provides the highest quality service to all participants. We continually innovate to provide cutting-edge tools and services for efficient peer review.
All submissions, including those that are part of thematic collections of research topic articles, go through the same rigorous review process.
We know that researchers' time to contribute to peer review is limited. And the way researchers are asked to review can be inefficient. that's why we buildfrontiers discovered- a platform that allows Frontiers review publishers to:
explore the manuscripts that have been submitted to our journals
identify submissions that match your experience
support your peers and the community by offering to review these submissions
contribute as a reviewer when it is convenient for them.
To visitdescubre.frontiersin.orgdiscover more.
Frontiers Discover also allows our editors to maintain control of the peer review process. All Review Editors who volunteer through the platform are vetted by our Associate Editors, Specialist Editors-in-Chief or Field Editors-in-Chief to ensure the best possible peer review experience.
Peer Review Principles
Frontiers maintains strict quality standards for manuscripts and the peer review process through clear criteria and dedicated teams. Manuscripts that meet these criteria are accepted, those that do not meet the criteria are rejected. We do not reject manuscripts based on their perceived potential impact, nor do we set a rejection rate, formal or informal. Instead, we judge the value and validity of submitted work through rigorous quality checks and authorize our editorial boards to make decisions about the content.
Dealing with editors and reviewers can recommend rejection at any time; editors make acceptance decisions; and editors-in-chief make accept and reject decisions. Frontiers' internal research integrity team performs pre- and post-review quality assessment and may reject articles that do not meet the acceptance criteria (listed below). This model ensures rigorous peer review, quick decisions, and high-quality research publication.
What is expected of everyone involved?
AuthorsYou must submit a manuscript that has significant scholarly value and fits within the scope of the journal. They must comply with all editorial and ethical policies and take into account all comments from reviewers and editors.
concealersthey are subject matter experts and assess manuscripts using the quality assessment tool and designated review questionnaire that prioritize scientific quality, rigor, and validity. They assess the strength and rigor of a study's methodology and ensure that the research provides valid conclusions and is supported by sufficient data.
Publishersthey are subject matter experts and meticulously evaluate the peer review process and manuscripts. They only endorse publication if reviewers validate the content of a manuscript.
Editors-in-Chief, Commissioning Editors, Reviewers, and Authors are guided and supported by our Peer Review Team, which maintains and ensures high quality standards for manuscripts and peer review itself, certifying quality, scientific rigor and validity of research articles and promoting collaboration between authors. reviewers and editors.
If an editor, reviewer or author is unsure how to proceed during the peer review process, the Peer Review Team is the main point of contact for guidance, with two specialized sub-teams: Research Integrity and Review Operations editorial.
Manuscript quality standards
Our Research Integrity team ensures that manuscripts meet high-quality research and ethical standards and will prevent publication of any manuscript that does not meet our quality standards.
At any stage prior to official publication, if a manuscript does not meet our editorial criteria and standards for publication, or if peer review or research integrity concerns are raised by any review participant or reader (abstracts are published online prior to official publication), the magazine's Frontiers Editors-in-Chief and Executive Editor-in-Chief will investigate these concerns regardless of the peer review or acceptance stage.
Frontiers applies the following criteria for the acceptance and rejection of manuscripts. See more information about our editorial and ethical policies below, as well as in ourauthor guidelines,Border Policies and Publishing Ethics, miterms and Conditions.
Criteria of acceptance
|All submissions accepted into Frontiers must be VALID:|
Vrobust research question and hypothesis, with a relevant theory for which the research question is posed
Aapplies a correct and transparent methodology, and the study design and materials are clearly defined
UEthe language and presentation are clear and appropriate, the figures and tables are in accordance with scientific norms and standards
UEn Aligned with Frontiers Author Guidelines on Editorial Policies and Ethics
Ddetermined based on the existing literature through sufficient references and adequate coverage of the relevant literature.
|A submission may be rejected at any stage before the official publication of the article, including during initial validation, peer review, final validation and, if problems are identified at a later stage, also after acceptance, for the following reasons:|
The manuscript does not have a valid research question or hypothesis
There are clear objective errors in the methodology of study design, data collection or analysis.
The manuscript does not comply with our editorial policies since it is not original, it is plagiarized or it is a duplication of previous works.
The language and presentation of the manuscript are not of sufficient quality for rigorous and efficient peer review to take place.
The study violates our ethics policies by failing to comply with privacy protection guidelines, ethical review board approval guidelines, and internationally recognized standards for research involving humans or animals.
The authors did not follow our authorship guidelines or fabricated, falsified data, or misrepresented images and figures.
References are clearly biased (geographical, self-cited, school of thought, citation poster) and do not reflect the current state of knowledge in the field.
Based on biased or flawed analyses, the study's conclusions are misleading and may even pose a threat to public health.
The study investigates a pseudoscientific research question.
Peer Review Quality Standards
Our editorial review operations team ensures a high-quality, rigorous, and efficient peer review process for all manuscripts submitted to Frontiers. The team establishes and maintains peer review guidelines for editors, reviewers, and authors, which incorporate editorial best practices and policies.
The team is responsible for maintaining the following quality standards:
Editors and reviewers are experts in the subject of the manuscript, with the necessary experience to evaluate the research having established a sufficient research paper or publication record in the same or related research area.
The editors and reviewers have no relationship with the authors and/or the research that may affect the objectivity of the peer review process.
If the peer review is ongoing and the editors or reviewers are found to lack relevant experience or have a conflict of interest, they may be removed and replaced during the review by the peer review team and/or the editor.
If editors or reviewers improperly request the citation of their own published articles or the journal (coercive citations), they may be revoked and replaced during the review.
Reviewers carefully complete the provided topic-specific questionnaire to assess the scientific rigor, quality, and validity of the manuscript they are reviewing. Review reports are checked to ensure that they provide authors with a constructive assessment of the validity and quality of the manuscripts.
Final editorial checks to verify that the peer review process met quality standards, that the concerns of the reviewers and editor were addressed, and that the manuscript is ready for publication.
Only high-quality manuscripts that pass our acceptance criteria (listed above) are published.
By accepting a peer review assignment with Frontiers, Editors and Reviewers agree to:
have the necessary expertise to judge the quality, rigor, and validity of the manuscript
submit comprehensive, high-quality review reports
provide timely feedback while still responding to collaborate with authors
behave professionally and ethically and be constructive during interactions with editors, authors, and editorial staff
respect ethical publication practices and refrain from requesting the addition of citations from their own articles or from journal articles (coercive citations), unless valid and justifiable academic reasons are conveyed.
As part of our quality standards, such practices will be monitored and may result in the revocation of assignments and editorial board members of editors and reviewers.
If an editor or reviewer fails to disclose ongoing collaborations that would affect their ability to conduct an objective review, or if they are found to have manipulated the peer review process through the use of false identities, false or misleading review reports, or a circle members to expedite the review of the manuscript (peer review ring), all their participation in the peer review will be terminated and all ongoing submissions will be rejected. The issue will be raised with the researchers' institutions.
The editors-in-chief of the journal and the executive editor-in-chief of Frontiers reserve the right, following a decision by the editor-in-charge, to request additional manuscript revisions, additional peer review, and to override acceptance or rejection. This power of decision is part of the editorial policies of Frontiers, as well as theterms and Conditions, with which all authors agree before submitting the manuscript. All submissions to Frontiers are subject to the same editorial policies and processes.
At the same time, for manuscripts to remain under consideration for publication, authors must:
stay involved in the peer review process and answer questions from editors, reviewers or the Frontiers editorial office
behave in a professional manner, use constructive and respectful language when communicating with editorial board members, reviewers, or the editorial office, and collaborate effectively during the peer review process.
Peer review participants will be removed from their assignments if they do not adhere to and comply with these review standards. Manuscripts may also be rejected if authors do not respond for an extended period (30 days) or use offensive and inappropriate language when communicating with members of the Frontiers editorial board or editorial office.
Peer Review Pillars
Our collaborative review forum brings together authors, reviewers and the responsible editor (called associate editor for members of the editorial board or subject editor for research topics) and, if necessary, the specialized editor-in-chief, in a direct dialogue online, allowing for rapid iterations and facilitating consensus. Editors and proofreaders work with authors to improve their manuscript.
Frontiers promotes a strict separation between review and evaluation. Frontiers editors and reviewers are mandated to focus on objective criteria that assess study quality, rigor, and validity and ensure results are valid, correct analysis, and of high quality. We publish all the articles evaluated as valid and of good quality. Reviewers may recommend rejection based on objective errors and rejection criteria. Judgments about the importance of an article can be made through open post-publication reviews. We also use objective impact metrics, which reflect the opinion of the entire community, to highlight notable findings.
Frontiers provides a review questionnaire template to make reviews systematic and rally reviewers' efforts on objective questions. The review should only focus on the quality of the research and the manuscript, and should aim to provide constructive feedback to bring the final article to its best quality. This allows for a fair, prompt, comprehensive and comparable evaluation of the research. The evaluation of the research will be done successively through the impact metrics at the article level. In addition, Frontiers provides authors with the highest quality peer review service by appointing only the world's best researchers to Frontiers' primary and associate editorial boards.
To ensure more rigorous and objective reviews, reviewer identities remain anonymous during the review period. When a manuscript is accepted for publication, the names of the reviewers who supported its publication appear on the published article,Without exceptions🇧🇷 If a reviewer recommends rejection or withdrawal during any step of this process, their name will benodivulge. The name of the responsible editor is also disclosed in the published article, acknowledging their contribution.
As a result of this process, reviews are conducted constructively, with editors and reviewers maintaining a level of accountability for the article and providing rigorous feedback that results in the highest quality publication possible. Please also note that because Frontiers operates a blind peer review process, the reviewers know the identities of the authors.
The Frontiers publishing platform is customizable. We offer one of the fastest systems among academic publishers. Our collaborative review forum guides authors, reviewers, and editors seamlessly through the review process and alerts them when action is required. This reduced the average time from submission to final decision to 61 days.
Full Peer Review Guidelines
All kinds of items go through acompletepeer review, except for Editorials, Ratings and Grand Challenges.
The entire collaborative peer review process consists of two phases:
During the independent review phase, reviewers assess the manuscript independently of each other and of the authors, according to a standardized review template. These models adapt to each type of article.
During the interactive review phase, authors and reviewers can interact with each other through real-time comments in the discussion forum, with the aim of clarifying all doubts about the manuscript. The responsible editor oversees the review process and, if necessary, the specialized editor-in-chief can also join the review forum.
Post Submission Steps
Once a manuscript is submitted, our editorial office performs a shortlist to validate the integrity of the research and quality standards. If a manuscript meets Frontiers' quality criteria, an editor from the relevant Specialty Section is invited to manage the manuscript's peer review process. After a preliminary verification of the content, the editor decides whether to send the manuscript for review or recommend its immediate rejection to the chief editor of the specialty.
In the latter case, the editor-in-chief of the specialty may confirm the immediate rejection recommendation of the editor-in-chief for the following reasons:
Objective errors in methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in the manuscript that preclude further consideration.
Ethical issues were identified in the manuscript that preclude further review or publication
The manuscript does not meet the established standards for the journal to be considered for publication (see full rejection criteria above).
However, the Specialty Editor-in-Chief may override the Responsible Editor's recommendation and decide that the manuscript merits review before making a final decision. In that case, they will assign the manuscript to a new treatment editor for further review.
The responsible editor invites experts to review the manuscript; most article types require at least two reviewers to complete a review. These reviewers may be invited by the review editors' board or be recruited as appropriate from experts in the field.
Dealing with Editors: Reviewer Invitations
If a manuscript is submitted for peer review, themanipulation editoris responsible for inviting and supervising expert reviewers. Most article types require at least two reviewers to complete a review. These reviewers may be invited by the review editors' board or be recruited as appropriate from experts in the field.
It is the prerogative of a responsible editor to manage the reviewer's recommendations for a manuscript. When reviewers make their recommendation (reject, revise, or accept the manuscript), the responsible editor must validate that decision against our clearly defined acceptance and rejection criteria (see above).
If the lead editor disagrees with a reviewer's final recommendation to either reject or accept the manuscript, it is the lead editor who has the right to seek further expert comment and invite additional reviewers. In 2020, in 9 out of 10 cases, treatment editors followed reviewer recommendations to accept or reject without seeking additional expert opinion.
Frontiers remains independent of this process and does not set or seek to influenceaccept or reject rates🇧🇷 We rely on the quality of our editors and peer review process, whose expertise has enabled Frontiers' open access journals to become some of the most cited in the world.
Independent review phase
Reviewers must submit the standardized independent review report via the online collaborative review forum within seven days of accepting the assignment. This is done independently by each reviewer. The Treatment Editor is automatically notified as each report is submitted, along with that reviewer's recommendation. If the reviewer recommends acceptance, he can immediately approve the manuscript and finalize his review.
Once all reviewers have submitted a report, the editor is responsible for activating the next phase, interactive review, to send review reports to authors. If the editor wants to recommend rejection during the independent review phase, they can do so by triggering the interactive review phase with key concerns, giving authors feedback and a unique opportunity to rebut during a defined period of time.
Interactive review phase
Once the editor activates the interactive review phase, authors are immediately notified and given access to the collaborative review forum where they can view reviewer comments. Authors are requested to respond and/or submit a revised manuscript within seven, 10, or 14 days, depending on the level of revisions requested by the editor. If the authors do not respond to several communication attempts, the editorial office will send a final email to the authors with a period of seven days to respond. After that, the editorial office reserves the right to withdraw the manuscript from the review process.
The editor can access and post comments in the collaborative review forum at any time. The editor also oversees the discussions that take place between authors and reviewers within the forum and ensures not only timeliness but also the construction of participant interactions.
If a dispute arises at this stage, the editor acts as a mediator, working with all parties involved to resolve the issues and even inviting new reviewers for additional input if necessary. If disagreement persists, the senior editor-in-chief is invited to enter the interactive review phase, assess the situation, and make a final decision on whether the review should end with the rejection of the manuscript or continue, potentially, but not necessarily. a new manipulation editor and a set of spell checkers.
When a disagreement cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of a reviewer, you may choose to recommend rejection of the manuscript. The treatment editor is then informed of the rejection recommendation and the reason. A reviewer can also withdraw from the review at any time. Both in the cases of recommendation for rejection and withdrawal, the reviewer will no longer participate in the evaluation forum, but will be able to continue monitoring the status of the manuscript on his Minha Fronteiras page. The editor is informed of the reviewer's recommendations and can choose to recommend rejection to the editor-in-chief or invite other reviewers to receive additional expert opinions. If a reviewer submits an Independent Review Report prior to the recommendation for withdrawal or rejection, the report will remain in the review forum for access by participants throughout the review process. It is not removed or lost.
During this phase, a manuscript can be rejected at any time for the following reasons:
Objective errors in methods, applications, or interpretations that preclude further consideration were identified in this manuscript.
Ethical issues were identified in this manuscript that preclude further review or publication.
The manuscript does not meet the standards established for the journal to be considered for publication
The authors were unable to sufficiently review the manuscript to address concerns raised by the reviewers or the editor during the review process.
Other reasons that meet the rejection criteria (listed above).
The review is complete only when the author has responded satisfactorily to all reviewer and editor comments.
Arbitration promoted by the author
If a dispute arises over the rejection of a manuscript, the authors can challenge the decision and trigger arbitration.
Claimants must provide enough information as part of their rebuttal so that an informed decision can be made as to whether the claim is valid. For example, if a rebuttal relates to a lack of ethical approval, the author must provide a letter obtained from the appropriate ethics committee as part of the rebuttal. Rebuttals must be factual and constructive. We will not consider rebuttals that contain inappropriate or derogatory language.
As a first step, the editorial office will arbitrate. They may discuss the case with the editors and reviewers to try to resolve the dispute, depending on the stage of peer review at which the rejection occurs and the reasons for the rejection. At editorial discretion, independent experts may also be called in for a confidential peer review. This process may include an assessment of the validity of the rebuttal and/or the peer review process.
Depending on the complexity of the case, claimants should expect the arbitration process to take anywhere from a few weeks to several months. While a decision can take a long time, authors should expect to receive updates every 2-4 weeks.
If a arbitration decision is in favor of the authors, the editorial office will consider returning the manuscript to the stage in which the rejection occurred and/or reinitiating the peer review process with a new designated editor and/or reviewer(s). s).
A manuscript will remain rejected if the arbitration determines that any of the above rejection criteria is met. While the arbitration of a rejected manuscript is ongoing, authors should not submit a revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer Triggered Arbitration
Reviewers also have the right to seek arbitration if they believe that the authors are reluctant to make the necessary changes as part of the peer review. Of course, reviewers can recommend rejection at any time or withdraw from the review process if they disagree with the arbitration decision (in both cases, their identity remains undisclosed). Removing a reviewer requires hiring a replacement, which slows down the peer review process; therefore, authors are encouraged to cooperate as much as possible in addressing the concerns of the reviewers involved with their manuscript. If the arbitration is favorable to the authors, the manuscript may be accepted even if there is a previous recommendation for rejection.
acceptance of the manuscript
If reviewers support publication of the manuscript in its current form, they must finalize their review reports, which automatically notify the responsible editor. To be considered for acceptance, the manuscript must:
be VALID as defined in the acceptance criteria above
have an editor and the minimum number of independent reviewers designated for the article type
be approved by a majority of the designated reviewers and not be withdrawn.
The editor can accept the final version of the manuscript or request additional changes as needed, usually within a few days. The acceptance of a manuscript can be decided by the responsible editor and does not require the approval of the specialized editor-in-chief.
Acceptance by the responsible editor takes the article to the final validation phase, during which the Frontiers peer review team performs final technical and quality checks, even if the review was successful. If the manuscript fails the final checks, it may be resubmitted for review to resolve any identified issues, or else the provisional acceptance decision may be overturned and the manuscript will be rejected at this stage without publication.
The Article Processing Fee (APC) must be paid within 30 days of acceptance and is required prior to final publication of the manuscript.
rejection of the manuscript
If the required minimum number of reviewers to endorse the manuscript (usually two, and must be a majority) is not met, the responsible editor must recommend to the specialized editor-in-chief that the manuscript be rejected for publication. The final rejection decision is usually made by the Articles Editor-in-Chief, but may also be made by the Research Integrity Team based on the rejection criteria above.
If a manuscript is rejected, no APC or other fee will be charged.
Brief Guidelines for Peer Review
Two types of articles, Editorials and Ratings, undergo an abbreviated peer review.
Short peer reviews differ from full peer reviews in two respects: they go directly to the interactive review phase, and they can only be reviewed by the responsible editor. It is at the editor's discretion to invite other reviewers to the review process.
Therefore, at the time of submission, a Frontiers editor of the appropriate specialty is immediately invited to take on the editorial duty of the manuscript, which also includes the role of reviewer. Since an independent review report is not required, the manuscript immediately enters the interactive review phase.
Interactive review, acceptance and rejection of the manuscript follow the same rules as full peer reviews.
Conflicts of interest
Frontiers is committed to upholding the highest standards of editorial ethics and takes publishing misconduct and conflicts of interest very seriously. Personal, financial and professional affiliations or relationships can be perceived as conflicts of interest. All authors and all members of Frontiers editorial boards must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest when submitting or accepting an editorial or review assignment.
Our review system is designed to ensure a transparent and objective editorial and review process, and because the names of editors and reviewers are released after articles are published, conflicts of interest will be apparent.
Authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest during the submission process. Consider the following questions and be sure to share any positive responses. If you did not disclose any of the potential conflicts of interest below during submission, please contact themagazine writingwith the details as soon as possible.
Potential conflicts of interest: authors
Have you or your institution ever received payment or services from a third party for any aspect of the submitted work?
Do you have financial relationships with entities that could be perceived as influencing, or appear to potentially influence, what you wrote in the submitted paper?
Do you own patents and copyrights, pending, issued, licensed and/or receiving royalties, related to the research?
Do you have other relationships or activities that readers may perceive have influenced, or appear to potentially influence, what you wrote in the submitted work?
Management, theme and review editors
Responsible external (associate) editors, reviewers, and reviewers are required to complete a questionnaire before taking on an assignment to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Research topic editors must also complete the questionnaire when they are assigned a manuscript under their research topic. If you answer yes to any of the following questions, Frontiers considers this to be a potential conflict of interest. These potential conflicts can occur between the editor and the authors, between the reviewers and the authors, or between the reviewers and the editors. It is recommended that editors invite independent reviewers from a wide range of institutional and geographic locations to promote diversity of thought and ensure an objective and fair peer review process.
If you are in any doubt as to whether a relationship or interest qualifies as a conflict of interest, it is always best to disclose that potential conflict so that Frontiers editors and the editorial office can determine if disclosure in the article is necessary or if a surrogate is in order. you must assign a reviewer or editor.
Publishers must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest to themagazine writing🇧🇷 Reviewers must report actual or potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office of the journal and to the editor responsible for the manuscript.
If in doubt, contact your journal office by email. You must provide details of the situation and potential conflicts you would like to report.
Potential Conflicts of Interest: Editors and Reviewers
Is either of the authors a spouse or partner, a member of the same family, or a very close personal friend?
Review editors must also not be members of the same family as the responsible editor.
Are you organizing or hosting a Frontiers research topic with any of the authors in the last 2 years?
Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated on a research project or publication with any of the authors in the last 2 years?
Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated with any of the authors as a consultant or in any other direct supervisory capacity in the past 5 years?
Are you currently or have you collaborated with any of the authors as a student or in any other direct reporting capacity in the last 5 years?
Observation:Review editors should not accept assignments if they have a close professional relationship with the responsible editor, which, in their opinion, could affect the objectivity of the review.
Are you affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors? If so, did this result in any interactions, collaborations or mutual interests with the authors that would compromise their impartiality in conducting this review?
Are you a current member of a committee or department that matches an affiliation with any of the authors?
Do you have a business or professional partnership with an author?
Do you have financial interests or business relationships with any organizations involved in this research or preparation of the manuscript?
Do you have a financial interest or conflict of interest in the content of the manuscript that could affect your ability to conduct an objective review?
Frontiers external reviewers must have a PhD or equivalent degree, or the equivalent number of years of a recognized qualification, in the relevant research field. It is also recommended that all external reviewers have sufficient experience in scientific publications, either from the point of view of the author or the reviewer.
Frontiers wants to help develop researchers early in their careers by offering them exposure to the peer review process. To further this development, we allow beginning researchers to collaborate in the review process with a senior researcher. Please contact the newsroom for any questions about how to proceed in these cases.
External reviewers are subject to the same conflict of interest restrictions as Frontiers review editors and must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest to themagazine writingand the editor responsible for the manuscript.
Frontiers takes publishing ethics issues very seriously. Frontiers strives to follow the best practice guidelines and recommendations published by the Publication Ethics Committee (LIDAR🇧🇷 Frontiers is a member of COPE and is also represented on the COPE board by its Editorial Office Manager. Frontiers follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), including recommended authorship criteria. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine is listed as a journal that follows the ICMJE recommendations on its website.
Authors are expected to adhere to ethical standards regarding authorship attribution, conflicts of interest, respect for ethical considerations in the use of experimental animals and human participants, disclosures of financial support, and participation in the peer review process. Likewise, cases of invalid or fraudulent data, plagiarism and double submissions will constitute grounds for rejection. see ourterms and Conditionsfor full details on author responsibilities.
Frontiers editors and reviewers must also follow ethical standards regarding conflicts of interest, confidentiality of reviewed work, objective evaluation of work, and preservation of reviewer anonymity until acceptance, in addition to refraining from coercive citations. Editors have the authority and responsibility to accept articles.
While Frontiers strives for transparency regarding the identity of reviewers and editors, external publication of review reports or discussions of the review process is strictly prohibited. Since the contributions made to the interactive review process come from many different parties, the decision to share these contributions is not reserved to any party.
Malpractice and misconduct
Frontiers will investigate reports of misconduct before and after publication. Corrections or retractions will be published if necessary to maintain the integrity of the academic record. Ourresearch integrity teammust be contacted immediately in case of suspected misconduct. Frontiers also investigates reports made on social media or other relevant websites as we become aware of them.