Peer review

Our unique peer review process gives you the chance to submit your research for a rigorous, transparent, and constructive review by experts in your field.

Since 2007 we have been working with the research community to refine our submission process, putting quality and community at the heart of what we offer.

Each manuscript submitted to a Frontiers journal goes through a series of research integrity assessments before peer review, multiple checkpoints during review, and a final validation before publication.

What happens when you submit your manuscript?

See our full peer review guidelines

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. 

• Reviewers are subject experts and evaluate manuscripts using our quality assessment tool. They evaluate the methodology of a study for rigor, and ensure the research provides valid conclusions supported by sufficient data. 

• Editors are well-known and respected leaders in their field and assess the process and manuscripts meticulously. They only endorse publication if the reviewers validate the contents of a manuscript. 

• With our online forum, authors can have a constructive conversation with reviewers and editors in real time, working together to make improvements to the manuscript. 

• The names of reviewers and editors appear on published articles, encouraging them to act responsibly and in the best interests of the final article. 

The whole process is supported by our experienced in-house peer review team. The team upholds and ensures high quality standards for manuscripts and the review itself, certifying the quality, scientific rigor, and validity of articles and promoting a constructive discussion among authors, reviewers, and editors. 

A timely and efficient approach. Our custom-built peer review platform guides you smoothly through the review process and alerts you when any action is required. A dedicated peer review team is always on hand to answer questions and provide support for each manuscript in review. Thanks to this, our average review time is under 90 days.

A fair approach, giving all valid science the opportunity to be published. Our peer review process is objective, rigorous and transparent. Reviewers follow a dedicated review questionnaire which ensures their review is constructive and is focused on quality and the validity of results – not perceived impact. All decisions are made in accordance with our VALID criteria.

A collaborative approach. Our process means that authors and reviewers engage in a direct online dialogue that enables quick iterations and facilitates consensus. This approach ensures the highest quality manuscript for final publication.

A thorough approach. Our research integrity team investigates any allegations or signs of misconduct or peer review manipulation during the peer review itself. This includes citation manipulation, false reviewer identification, conflicts of interest, and any activity that may unduly influence the outcome of the review process.

We know researchers' time to contribute by engaging in peer review is limited. And the way researchers are invited to review can be inefficient. That's why we built Frontiers Discover - a platform that enables Frontiers' review editors to:

• browse manuscripts that have been submitted to our journals

• identify submissions that match their expertise

• support their colleagues, and the community, by offering to review these submissions

• contribute as a reviewer when it's convenient to them.

Visit discover.frontiersin.org to find out more.

Frontiers Discover also allows our editors to maintain control of the peer review process. All review editors that volunteer through the platform are vetted by our associate editors, specialty chief editors, or field chief editors, to ensure the best possible peer review experience.

Find out more: 

• Author guidelines 

• Policies and publication ethics

• Peer review guidelines