4 ms·
>This article is stupid. Whoa, that says a lot about what kind of scientist you are ... I have a published paper under the "Frontiers in" brand and can assure
by moralestapia 5y ago
>This article is stupid.
Whoa, that says a lot about what kind of scientist you are ...
I have a published paper under the "Frontiers in" brand and can assure you that the people behind it (staff and editors) are among the most professional in what they do. "Frontiers in" does not publish fringe science, they are quite rigorous in their process.
Also the paper is written by quite reputable people and backed by several institutions. If their claims were "stupid" (as you arrogantly put it) they would have spotted it before you, trust me.
- flobosg 5y agoThere have been some controversies though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Controversies
- moralestapia 5y agoThey seem to have 123 retractions across their whole editorial offer. http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx#?jou%3dfrontiers%2bin http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx#?jou%3df... That's actually quite a good record for a publisher with 80 or so journals and ~270,000 published papers. Edit: you're right @flobosg, I was looking at another comment with a similar username and my mind just squashed them together :P.
- flobosg 5y ago> I know you stated somewhere else that this is not your domain You are confusing me with someone else.
- paulnpace 5y agoAnyone taking a discipline seriously would never link to Wikipedia, with the exception of when Wikipedia, itself, is topical. It is usually a sign of laziness and weak positions on the part of the person linking to the article.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]