Frontiers in Materials is a high visibility journal publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the entire breadth of materials science and technology. This interdisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers across academia and industry, and the public worldwide.
Founded upon a research community driven approach, this Journal provides a balanced and comprehensive offering of Specialty Sections, each of which has a dedicated Editorial Board of leading experts in the respective field.
Frontiers in Materials is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
Field Chief Editor/s:
Nicola Maria Pugno, University of Trento, Italy
Zara Zara Boutique winter Boutique Pullover Sweater winter Short Name: Front. Mater.
Electronic ISSN: 2296-8016
Indexed in: Google Scholar, DOAJ, CrossRef, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), Emerging Sources Citation Index, CLOCKSS
Frontiers in Materials is composed of the following Specialty Sections:
The specialty sections of Frontiers in Materials welcome submission of the following article types: Book Review, Code, Correction, Data Report, Editorial, General Commentary, Hypothesis and Theory, Methods, Mini Review, Opinion, Original Research, Perspective, Protocols, Review, Specialty Grand Challenge, Technology Report, Brief Research Report, Systematic Review and Erratum.
When submitting a manuscript to Frontiers in Materials, authors must submit the material directly to one of the specialty sections. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed by the Associate and Review Editors of the respective specialty section.
Articles published in the specialty sections above will benefit from the Frontiers impact and tiering system after online publication. Authors of published original research with the highest impact, as judged democratically by the readers, will be invited by the Chief Editor to write a Frontiers Focused Review - a tier-climbing article. This is referred to as "democratic tiering". The author selection is based on article impact analytics of original research published in the Frontiers specialty journals and sections. Focused Reviews are centered on the original discovery, place it into a broader context, and aim to address the wider community across all of Materials.
Frontiers’ philosophy is that all research is for the benefit of humankind. Research is the product of an investment by society and therefore its fruits should be returned to all people without borders or discrimination, serving society universally and in a transparent fashion.
That is why Frontiers provides online free and open access to all of its research publications. For more information on open access click here.
Open Access funder and institutional mandates: Frontiers is fully compliant with open access mandates, by publishing its articles under the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC-BY). Funder mandates such as those by the Wellcome Trust (UK), National Institutes of Health (USA) and the Australian Research Council (Australia) are fully compatible with publishing in Frontiers. Authors retain copyright of their work and can deposit their publication in any repository. The work can be freely shared and adapted provided that appropriate credit is given and any changes specified.
Under the Frontiers Conditions for Website Use and the Frontiers General Conditions for Authors, authors of articles published in Frontiers journals retain copyright on their articles, except for any third-party images and other materials added by Frontiers, which are subject to copyright of their respective owners. Authors are therefore free to disseminate and re-publish their articles, subject to any requirements of third-party copyright owners and subject to the original publication being fully cited. Visitors may also download and forward articles subject to the citation requirements and subject to any fees Frontiers may charge for downloading licenses. The ability to copy, download, forward or otherwise distribute any materials is always subject to any copyright notices displayed. Copyright notices must be displayed prominently and may not be obliterated, deleted or hidden, totally or partially.
Each Frontiers article strives for the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors, editors and reviewers, who include many of the world's best scientists and scholars. Frontiers is well aware of the potential impact of published research both on future research and on society and, hence, does not support superficial review, light review or no-review publishing models. Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public - and shape society. Therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews, established in the high standards of the Frontiers Review System. Furthermore, only the top certified research, evaluated objectively through quantitative online article level metrics, is disseminated to increasingly wider communities as it gradually climbs the tiers of the Frontiers Tiering System from specialized expert readership towards public understanding.
Frontiers has a number of procedures in place to support and ensure the quality of the research articles that are published:
Editorial Board Quality
winter Boutique winter Pullover Boutique Zara Zara Sweater 1) Only leading experts and established members of the research community are appointed to the Frontiers Editorial Boards. Chief Editors, Associate Editors and Review Editors are all listed with their names and affiliations on the Journal pages and are encouraged to publicly list their publication credentials.
Associate Editor Assignment Quality
2) Associate Editors oversee the peer-review and take the final acceptance decision on manuscripts. Editorial decision power is distributed in Frontiers, because we believe that many experts within a community should be able to shape the direction of science for the benefit of society.
3) Submitting authors can choose a preferred Associate Editor to handle their manuscript, because they can judge well who would be an appropriate expert in editing their manuscript. There is no guarantee for this preference of choice, Associate Editors can decline invitations any time, and the handling Associate Editor can also be over-ridden by the Chief Editor before she/he is invited to edit the article or at any other stage.
4) Associate Editors are mandated to only accept to edit a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest (as stated here and in their review invitation and assignment emails).
5) Should it become clear that the Associate Editor has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer-review timely and adequately, a new Associate Editor can be assigned to the manuscript by the Chief Editor, who has full control to intervene in the peer-review process at any time.
6) The Associate Editor initially checks that the article meets basic quality standards and has no obvious objective errors.
Reviewer Assignment Quality
7) The Associate Editor can then personally choose and invite the most appropriate reviewers to handle the peer-review of the manuscript, including Review Editors from the board or external reviewers.
8) The Associate Editor is aided in this by the Frontiers Collaborative Review Forum software and interface, which suggests the most relevant Review Editors based on a match between their expertise and the topic of the manuscript. Associate Editors can however choose any reviewer they deem adequate.
9) After a certain time frame and if no reviewers have in the meantime been assigned to the manuscript, the Frontiers platform and algorithmic safety-net steps in and invites the most appropriate Review Editors based on constantly updated and improved algorithms that match reviewer expertise with the submitted manuscript.
10) Review Editors and reviewers are mandated to only accept to review a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest (as stated here and in their review invitation and assignment emails).
11) Frontiers algorithms are constantly fine-tuned to better match Review Editors with manuscripts, and additional checks are being coded into the platform, for example regarding conflicts of interest.
12) Should it become clear that a particular reviewer has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer-review timely and adequately, he or she shall be replaced with an alternative reviewer by the Associate Editor or the Chief Editor, who will be alerted and has full control to intervene into the peer-review at any time.
Independent Review Stage Quality
13) In the Independent Review Stage the assigned reviewers perform an in-depth review of the article independently of each other to safeguard complete freedom of opinion.
14) The reviewers are aided by an online standardized review questionnaire – adopted to article types – with the goal to facilitate rigorous evaluation according to objective criteria and the Frontiers Review Guidelines.Gap Boutique Gap Skirt Casual Gap Gap Skirt Boutique Casual Gap Boutique Boutique Casual Skirt Boutique Skirt Casual FwqACA
Interactive Review Stage Quality
15) The Associate Editor assesses the reviews and activates the “Interactive Review” – informing the authors of the extent of revisions that are required to address the reviewers’ comments, and starting the Interactive Discussion Forum where authors and also the reviewers get full access to all review reports.
16) Manuscript and review quality at this stage are enhanced by allowing authors and reviewers to discuss directly with each other in real-time until they reach consensus and a final version of the manuscript is endorsed by the reviewers.
17) Reviewer identity is protected at this stage to safeguard complete freedom of opinion.
18) Reviewers can recommend rejection at this stage if their requests to correct objective errors are not being met by the authors or if they deem the article overall of insufficient quality.
19) Should a dispute arise, authors or reviewers can trigger an arbitration and will alert the Associate Editor, who can assign more reviewers and/or bring the dispute to the attention of the Chief Editor. The Associate Editor can also weigh in on the discussion and is asked to mediate the process to ensure a constructive revision stage.
Decision Stage Quality
20) The decision to accept an article needs to be unanimous amongst all reviewers and the handling Associate Editor.
21) The names of the Associate Editor and reviewers are disclosed on published articles to encourage in depth and rigorous reviews, acknowledge work well done on the article and to bring transparency and accountability into peer-review.
22) Associate Editors can recommend the rejection of an article to the Chief Editor, who needs to check that the authors’ rights have been upheld during the peer-review process, and who can then ultimately reject the article if it is of insufficient quality, has objective errors or if the authors were unreasonably unwilling to address the points raised during the review.
23) Chief Editors can at any stage of the peer-review step in to comment on the review process, change assigned editors, assign themselves as a reviewer and even as the handling editor for the manuscript, and therefore have full authority and all the mechanisms to act independently in their online editorial office to ensure quality.
Safeguards against Financial Conflicts of Interest
24) Only leading researchers acting as Associate Editors, who are not part of Frontiers staff, can make acceptance decisions based on reviews performed by external experts acting as Review Editors or reviewers. None have a financial incentive to accept articles, i.e. they are not paid for their role to act as Associate or Review Editors, and any award scheme is not linked to acceptances of manuscripts.
25) Chief Editors receive an honorarium if their specialty section or field reaches certain submission levels. However, this honorarium is based on the total number of submitted articles during a calendar year, and not the number of accepted articles. Therefore they also have no financial incentive to accept manuscripts.
Post-Publication Stage Quality
26) The Frontiers platform enables post-publication commenting and discussions on papers and hence the possibility to critically evaluate articles even after the peer-review process.
27) Frontiers has a community retraction protocol in place to retract papers where serious concerns have been raised and validated by the community that warrant retraction, including ethical concerns, honest errors or scientific misconduct.
Frontiers Editorial Office
Avenue du Tribunal Fédéral 34
CH – 1005 Lausanne
Tel +41(0)21 510 17 40
Fax +41 (0)21 510 17 01
Please view the table below for a summary on currently accepted article types and general manuscript style guidelines. Article types may vary depending on journal.
|Abstract (max. length)||Running title (5 words)||Figures and/or tables (combined)||Manuscript (max. length)||Peer review||Author fees||Submitted to PubMed Central or other indexing databases|
|Book Review||1||1'000 words|
|Brief Research Report||250 words||2||2'000 words|
|Classification||250 words||10||2'000 words|
|Case Report||350 words||4||3'000 words|
|Clinical Study Protocol||350 words||15||12'000 words|
|Clinical Trial||350 words||15||12'000 words|
|Code||250 words||3||3'000 words|
|Community Case Study||350 words||5||5'000 words|
|Conceptual Analysis||350 words||Zara Zara winter winter Boutique Sweater Boutique Pullover 10||8'000 words|
|CPC||250 words||6||2'500 words|
|Curriculum, Instruction, and Pedagogy||350 words||5||5'000 words|
|Data Report||2||3'000 words|
|Empirical Study||350 words||10||8'000 words|
|Evaluation||350 words||5||6'000 words|
|Field Grand Challenge||1||2'000 words|
|Focused Review (1)||350 words||5||5'000 words|
|Frontiers Commentary (1)||1||1'000 words|
|General Commentary||1||1'000 words|
|Hypothesis and Theory||350 words||15||12'000 words|
|Methods||350 words||15||12'000 words|
|Mini Review||250 words||2||3'000 words|
|Original Research||350 words||15||12'000 words|
|Policy & Practice Reviews||350 words||15||12'000 words|
|Policy Briefs||125 words||5||3'000 words|
|Protocols||350 words||15||12'000 words|
|Perspective||250 words||2||3'000 words|
|Research Snapshot||50 words||1||500 words|
|Review||Pullover Boutique winter Zara winter Sweater Zara Boutique 350 words||15||12'000 words||Island Island Casual Plastic Island Skirt Boutique Boutique Boutique Plastic Plastic Skirt Casual Casual 4rPqfrwY|
|Specialty Grand Challenge||1||2'000 words|
|Systematic Reviews||350 words||15||12'000 words|
|Technology Report||350 words||15||12'000 words|
(1) Tier 2 article - field level article reserved to authors of selected Tier 1 articles.
* Editorials for Research Topics with 5 to 10 published articles have a maximum of 1'000 words, for Research Topics with more than 10 published articles the following applies: 1'100 words for 11 articles, 1'200 for 12 articles, 1'300 for 13 articles etc. up to maximum 5'000 words, for 50 or more papers.
Appendices and footnotes will be considered in the total length and word count of the article.
All Frontiers articles from July 2012 onwards are published with open access under the CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license (the current version is CC-BY, version 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that the author(s) retain copyright, but the content is free to download, distribute and adapt for commercial or non-commercial purposes, given appropriate attribution to the original article.
Upon submission, author(s) grant Frontiers an exclusive license to publish, including to display, store, copy and reuse the content. The CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license enables anyone to use the publication freely, given appropriate attribution to the author(s) and citing Frontiers as the original publisher. The CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license does not apply to third-party materials that display a copyright notice to prohibit copying. Unless the third-party content is also subject to a CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license, or an equally permissive license, the author(s) must comply with any third-party copyright notices.
Frontiers’ supportive preprint policy encourages full open access at all stages of a research paper, to share and generate the knowledge researchers need to support their work. Authors publishing in Frontiers journals may share their work ahead of submission to a peer-reviewed journal, as well as during the Frontiers review process, on repositories or pre-print servers (such as ArXiv, PeerJ Preprints, OSF and others), provided that the server imposes no restrictions upon the author's full copyright and re-use rights. Also note that any manuscript files shared after submission to Frontiers journals, during the review process, must not contain the Frontiers logo or branding.
Correct attribution of the original source in repositories or pre-print servers must be included on submission, or added at re-submission if the deposition is done during the review process.
If the article is published, authors are then strongly encouraged to link from the preprint server to the Frontiers publication to enable readers to find, access and cite the final peer-reviewed version. Please note that we cannot consider for publication content that has been previously published, or is already under review, within a scientific journal, book or similar entity.
Please note that the corresponding and all submitting authors MUST register with Frontiers before submitting an article. You must be logged in to your personal Frontiers Account to submit an article.
For any co-author who would like his/her name on the article abstract page and PDF to be linked to a Frontiers profile on the Loop network, please ensure to register before the final publication of the paper.
Frontiers requires authors to carefully select the appropriate article type for their manuscript, and to comply with the article-type descriptions defined in the journal’s "Article Types", which can be seen from the "For Authors" menu on any Frontiers journal page. Please pay close attention to the word count limits. Focused Reviews, Frontiers Commentaries and Grand Challenge articles are invited by the chief editor and cannot be part of any Frontiers Research Topic. Unless you were contacted by the chief editor or the editorial office regarding the submission of a paper selected for tier 2 promotion, do not submit a Focused Review or a Frontiers Commentary - instead, submit a Review or a General Commentary.
Please see Additional Requirements for specific article types including Focused Reviews, General Commentaries, Protocols and Data Reports.
Frontiers encourages its authors to closely follow the article word count lengths given in the Summary Table. The manuscript length includes only the main body of the text, footnotes and all citations within it, and excludes abstract, section titles, figure and table captions, funding statements, acknowledgments and references in the bibliography. Please indicate the number of words and the number of figures included in your manuscript on the first page.
Frontiers requires manuscripts submitted to meet international standards for English language to be considered for publication.
For authors who would like their manuscript to receive language editing or proofing to improve the clarity of the manuscript and help highlight their research, Frontiers recommends the language-editing services provided by the following external partners:
Frontiers is pleased to recommend language-editing service provided by our external partner Editage to authors who believe their manuscripts would benefit from professional editing. These services may be particularly useful for researchers for whom English is not the primary language. They can help to improve the grammar, syntax and flow of your manuscripts prior to submission. Frontiers authors will receive a 10% discount by visiting the following link: http://editage.com/frontiers/
The Charlesworth Group
Frontiers recommends the Charlesworth Group Author Services, who has a long standing track record in language editing and proofing. This is a third-party service for which Frontiers authors will receive a discount by visiting the following link: http://www.charlesworthauthorservices.com/~Frontiers.
Note that sending your manuscript for language editing does not imply or guarantee that it will be accepted for publication by a Frontiers journal. Editorial decisions on the scientific content of a manuscript are independent of whether it has received language editing or proofing by the partner services, or other services.
The default language style at Frontiers is American English. If you prefer your article to be formatted in British English, please specify this on your manuscript first page. For any questions regarding style Frontiers recommends authors to consult the Chicago Manual of Style.
There are a few simple ways to maximize your article’s discoverability. Follow the steps below to improve search results of your article:
The title is written in title case, centred, and in 16 point bold Times New Roman font at the top of page.
The title should be concise, omitting terms that are implicit and, where possible, be a statement of the main result or conclusion presented in the manuscript. Abbreviations should be avoided within the title.
Witty or creative titles are welcome, but only if relevant and within measure. Consider if a title meant to be thought-provoking might be misinterpreted as offensive or alarming. In extreme cases, the editorial office may veto a title and propose an alternative.
Authors should try to avoid, if possible:
For Corrigenda, Book Reviews, General Commentaries and Editorials, the title of your manuscript should have the following format:
For article types requiring it, the running title should be a maximum of 5 words in length. (see Summary Table)
All names are listed together and separated by commas. Provide exact and correct author names as these will be indexed in official archives. Affiliations should be keyed to the author's name with superscript numbers and be listed as follows: Laboratory, Institute, Department, Organization, City, State abbreviation (USA, Canada, Australia), and Country (without detailed address information such as city zip codes or street names).
Example: Max Maximus, Department of Excellence, International University of Science, New York, NY, USA.
The Corresponding Author(s) should be marked with an asterisk. Provide the exact contact email address of the corresponding author(s) in a separate section.
Dr. Max Maximus
If any authors wish to include a change of address, list the present address(es) below the correspondence details using a unique superscript symbol keyed to the author(s) in the author list.
Consortium/group authorship should be listed in the manuscript with the other author(s). In cases where authorship is retained by the consortium/group, the consortium/group should be listed as an author separated by “,” or “and”. Consortium/group members can be listed in a separate section at the end of the manuscript.
Example: John Smith, Barbara Smith and The Collaborative Working Group.
In cases where work is presented by the author(s) on behalf of a consortium/group, it should be included in the manuscript author list separated with the wording “for” or “on behalf of”. The consortium/group will not retain authorship.
Example: John Smith and Barbara Smith on behalf of The Collaborative Working Group.
Except for special names (e.g. GABAergic), capitalize only the first letter of headings and subheadings. Headings and subheadings need to be defined in Times New Roman, 12, bold. You may insert up to 5 heading levels into your manuscript (not more than for example: 184.108.40.206.2 Heading title).
As a primary goal, the abstract should render the general significance and conceptual advance of the work clearly accessible to a broad readership. In the abstract, minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references. The text of the abstract section should be in 12 point normal Times New Roman. See Summary Table for abstract requirement and length according to article type.
For Clinical Trial article types, please include the Unique Identifier and the URL of the publicly accessible website on which the trial is registered.
All article types: you may provide up to 8 keywords; at least 5 are mandatory.
The body text is in 12 point normal Times New Roman. New paragraphs will be separated with a single empty line. The entire document should be single-spaced and should contain page and line numbers in order to facilitate the review process. Your manuscript should be written using either LaTeX or MS-Word.
Your manuscript is organized by headings and subheadings. For Original Research Articles, Clinical Trial Articles, and Technology Reports the section headings should be those appropriate for your field and the research itself.
For Original Research Articles, it is recommended to organize your manuscript in the following sections or their equivalents for your field:
Succinct, with no subheadings.
This section may be divided by subheadings. This section should contain sufficient detail so that when read in conjunction with cited references, all procedures can be repeated. For experiments reporting results on animal or human subject research, an ethics approval statement should be included in this section (for further information, see section Materials and Data Policies)
This section may be divided by subheadings. Footnotes should not be used and have to be transferred into the main text.
This section may be divided by subheadings. Discussions should cover the key findings of the study: discuss any prior art related to the subject so to place the novelty of the discovery in the appropriate context; discuss the potential short-comings and limitations on their interpretations; discuss their integration into the current understanding of the problem and how this advances the current views; speculate on the future direction of the research and freely postulate theories that could be tested in the future.
For further information, please see Additional Requirements for specific article types including Focused Reviews, General Commentaries, Case Reports and Data Reports amongst others or you can check the descriptions defined in the journal’s "Article Types", which can be seen from the "For Authors" menu on any Frontiers journal page.
This is a short text to acknowledge the contributions of specific colleagues, institutions, or agencies that aided the efforts of the authors.
The Author Contributions Statement can be up to several sentences long and should briefly describe the tasks of individual authors. Please list only 2 initials for each author, without full stops, but separated by commas (e.g. JC, JS). In the case of two authors with the same initials, please use their middle initial to differentiate between them (e.g. REW, RSW). The Author Contributions Statement should be included at the end of the manuscript before the References.
A Conflict of Interest Statement needs to be included at the end of the manuscript before the references. Here, the authors need to declare whether or not the submitted work was carried out in the presence of any personal, professional or financial relationships that could potentially be construed as a conflict of interest. For more information on conflicts of interest, see our Editorial Policies.
Boutique winter Boutique Zara Zara winter Sweater Pullover When you submit your manuscript, you will be required to add a cover letter directed to the Editor.
Please indicate, in the first paragraph, the title of the manuscript, the article type, the Journal and specialty to which the manuscript is being submitted, and whether it is part of a Research Topic. You must also state that the manuscript has not been submitted for publication elsewhere; any closely related works submitted for consideration in other publications should be noted and you may be asked to provide a copy.
It is essential as well that you provide a short description of the significance of the manuscript. While Frontiers evaluates articles using objective criteria, rather than impact or novelty, your cover letter should frame the question(s) you have addressed in your work in the context of the current body of knowledge, providing evidence that the findings - whether positive or negative - contribute to progress in your research discipline. This will assist the Chief Editors to determine whether your manuscript fits within the scope of a specialty as defined in its mission statement; a detailed cover letter will also facilitate the identification of the Editors and Reviewers most appropriate to evaluate your work, ultimately expediting your manuscript's initial consideration.
All citations in the text, figures or tables must be in the reference list and vice-versa. The references should only include articles that are published or accepted. Data sets that have been deposited to an online repository should be included in the reference list, include the version and unique identifier when available. For accepted but unpublished works use "in press" instead of page numbers. Unpublished data, submitted manuscripts, or personal communications should be cited within the text only, for the article types that allow such inclusions. Personal communications should be documented by a letter of permission. Website urls should be included as footnotes. Any inclusion of verbatim text must be contained in quotation marks and clearly reference the original source. Preprints can be cited as long as a DOI or archive URL is available, and the citation clearly mentions that the contribution is a preprint. If a peer-reviewed journal publication for the same preprint exists, the official journal publication is the preferred source.
The following formatting styles are meant as a guide, as long as the full citation is complete and clear, Frontiers referencing style will be applied during typesetting.
Reference list: provide the names of the first six authors followed by et al. and doi when available.
In-text citations should be called according to the surname of the first author, followed by the year. For works by 2 authors include both surnames, followed by the year. For works by more than 2 authors include only the surname of the first author, followed by et al., followed by the year. For Humanities and Social Sciences articles please include page numbers in the in-text citations.
Sondheimer, N., and Lindquist, S. (2000). Rnq1: an epigenetic modifier of protein function in yeast. Mol. Cell. 5, 163-172.
Tahimic, C.G.T., Wang, Y., Bikle, D.D. (2013). Anabolic effects of IGF-1 signaling on the skeleton. Front. Endocrinol. 4:6. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2013.00006
Sorenson, P. W., and Caprio, J. C. (1998). "Chemoreception," in The Physiology of Fishes, ed. D. H. Evans (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 375-405.
Cowan, W. M., Jessell, T. M., and Zipursky, S. L. (1997). Molecular and Cellular Approaches to Neural Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hendricks, J., Applebaum, R., and Kunkel, S. (2010). A world apart? Bridging the gap between theory and applied social gerontology. Gerontologist 50, 284-293. Abstract retrieved from Abstracts in Social Gerontology database. (Accession No. 50360869)
Marshall, S. P. (2000). Method and apparatus for eye tracking and monitoring pupil dilation to evaluate cognitive activity. U.S. Patent No 6,090,051. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Perdiguero P, Venturas M, Cervera MT, Gil L, Collada C. Data from: Massive sequencing of Ulms minor's transcriptome provides new molecular tools for a genus under the constant threat of Dutch elm disease. Dryad Digital Repository. (2015) http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ps837
Smith, J. (2008) Post-structuralist discourse relative to phenomological pursuits in the deconstructivist arena. [dissertation/master’s thesis]. [Chicago (IL)]: University of Chicago
Smith, J. (2008). Title of the document. Preprint repository name [Preprint]. Available at: https://persistent-url (Accessed March 15, 2018).
For examples of citing other documents and general questions regarding reference style, please refer to the Chicago Manual of Style.
Reference list: provide the names of the first six authors followed by et al. and doi when available.
In-text citations should be numbered consecutively in order of appearance in the text – identified by Arabic numerals in the parenthesis for Health articles, and in square brackets for Physics and Mathematics articles.
Sondheimer N, Lindquist S. Rnq1: an epigenetic modifier of protein function in yeast. Mol Cell (2000) 5:163-72.
Tahimic CGT, Wang Y, Bikle DD. Anabolic effects of IGF-1 signaling on the skeleton. Front Endocrinol (2013) 4:6. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2013.00006
Sorenson PW, Caprio JC. "Chemoreception,". In: Evans DH, editor. The Physiology of Fishes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (1998). p. 375-405.
Cowan WM, Jessell TM, Zipursky SL. Molecular and Cellular Approaches to Neural Development. New York: Oxford University Press (1997). 345 p.
Christensen S, Oppacher F. An analysis of Koza's computational effort statistic for genetic programming. In: Foster JA, editor. Genetic Programming. EuroGP 2002: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Genetic Programming; 2002 Apr 3–5; Kinsdale, Ireland. Berlin: Springer (2002). p. 182–91.
Pagedas AC, inventor; Ancel Surgical R&D Inc., assignee. Flexible Endoscopic Grasping and Cutting Device and Positioning Tool Assembly. United States patent US 20020103498 (2002).
Perdiguero P, Venturas M, Cervera MT, Gil L, Collada C. Data from: Massive sequencing of Ulms minor's transcriptome provides new molecular tools for a genus under the constant threat of Dutch elm disease. Dryad Digital Repository. (2015) http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ps837winter Flynn Boutique Romper Flynn Boutique winter 8YqpwT8
Smith, J. (2008) Post-structuralist discourse relative to phenomological pursuits in the deconstructivist arena. [dissertation/master’s thesis]. [Chicago (IL)]: University of Chicago
Smith, J. Title of the document. Preprint repository name [Preprint] 2008). Available at: https://persistent-url (Accessed March 15, 2018).
For examples of citing other documents and general questions regarding reference style, please refer to Citing Medicine.
Any necessary disclaimers which must be included in the published article should be clearly indicated in the manuscript.
Frontiers journals do not support pushing important results and information into supplementary sections. However, data that are not of primary importance to the text, or which cannot be included in the article because it is too large or the current format does not permit it (such as movies, raw data traces, power point presentations, etc.) can be uploaded during the submission procedure and will be displayed along with the published article. All supplementary files are deposited to FigShare for permanent storage, during the publication stage of the article, and receive a DOI.
The Supplementary Material can be uploaded as Data Sheet (word, excel, csv, cdx, fasta, pdf or zip files), Presentation (power point, pdf or zip files), Supplementary Image (cdx, eps, jpeg, pdf, png or tif), Supplementary Table (word, excel, csv or pdf), Audio (mp3, wav or wma) or Video (avi, divx, flv, mov, mp4, mpeg, mpg or wmv).
Supplementary material is not typeset so please ensure that all information is clearly presented, the appropriate caption is included in the file and not in the manuscript, and that the style conforms to the rest of the article. For Supplementary Material templates (LaTex and Word) see Supplementary Material for Frontiers.
If working with Word please use Frontiers Word templates.
If you wish to submit your article as LaTeX, we recommend our Banana Pants winter Republic Leisure Dress P5H4qww. These templates are meant as a guide, you are of course welcome to use any style or formatting and Frontiers journal style will be applied during typesetting.
When submitting your article please ensure to upload all relevant manuscript files including:
Figures should be included in the provided pdf. In case of acceptance, our Production Office might require high resolution files of the figures included in the manuscript in eps, jpg or tif format. In order to be able to upload more than one figure at a time, save the figures (labeled in order of appearance in the manuscript) in a zip file, and upload them as ‘Supplementary Material Presentation’.
To facilitate the review process, please include a Word Count at the beginning of your manuscript, one option is teXcount which also has an online interface.
During the Interactive Review, authors are encouraged to upload versions using ‘Track Changes’. Editors and Reviewers can only download the PDF file of the submitted manuscript .
CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the CrossMark logo Frontiers is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur. Clicking on the CrossMark logo will tell you the current status of a document and may also give you additional publication record information about the document.
For General Commentaries, the title of your manuscript must have the following format: "Commentary: Title of the original article". At the beginning of your Commentary, please provide the citation of the article commented on. Authors commenting on a Frontiers article must submit their commentary for consideration to the same Journal and Specialty as the original article.
Rebuttals may be submitted in response to Commentaries; our limit in place is one commentary and one response. Rebuttals should be submitted as General Commentary articles and the title should have the following format: "Response : Commentary: Title of original article".
For book Reviews, you must provide the full book details at the beginning of the article in this format: Book Review: Full book reference"
For Tier 2 invited Focused Reviews, to shape the paper on the importance of the research to the field, we recommend structuring the Review to discuss the paper's Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion. In addition the authors must submit a short biography of the corresponding author(s). This short biography has a maximum of 600 characters, including spaces
A picture (5 x 5 cm, in *.tif or *.jpg, min 300 dpi) must be submitted along with the biography in the manuscript and separately during figure upload.
Focused Reviews highlight and explain key concepts of your work. Please highlight a minimum of four and a maximum of ten key concepts in bold in your manuscript and provide the definitions/explanations at the end of your manuscript under “Key Concepts”. Each definition has a maximum of 400 characters, including spaces.
For Systematic Reviews, the following article structure applies.
Each of the sections should include specific sub-sections as follows
AbstractCasual Boutique winter Dress Boutique DKNYC winter xHCafa
For Data Reports, please make sure to follow these additional specific guidelines.
1. The data sets (defined as a collection of data that contains individual data units organized in a standardized reusable format, including pre-processed or raw data) must be deposited in a public repository for long-term data preservation prior to submission of the Data Report. The data set(s) is to be fixed and made publicly available upon publication of the Data Report.
2. Our data sharing policy also requires that the dataset be made available to the Frontiers editors and reviewers during the review process of the manuscript. Prior to submission of your Data Report manuscript, please ensure that the repository you have selected supports confidential peer-review. If it does not, we recommend that the authors deposit the datasets to figshare or Dryad Digital Repository for the peer-review process. The data set(s) can then be transferred to another relevant repository before final publication, should the article be accepted for publication at Frontiers.
Note that it is the authors’ responsibility to maintain the data sets after publication of the Data Report. Any published Frontiers Data Report article will be considered for retraction should the data be removed from the final selected repository after publication or the access become restricted.
3. The submitted manuscript must include the following details:
All these elements will be peer-reviewed and are required for the publication of the Data Report.
Any future updates to the data set(s) should be deposited as independent versions in a repository and the relevant information may be published as General Commentaries linked on the Frontiers website to the initial Data Report.
Any detailed analyses or new scientific insights relating to the Data Report can be submitted as independent research articles which can also be linked on the Frontiers website to the Data Report article. The protocols and methodology used to collect the data can also be submitted as Methods articles.
For Case Reports the following sections are mandatory:
Include symptoms at presentation, physical exams and lab results.
This section may be divided by subheadings. Include history and review of similar cases.
This section may be divided by subheadings. Include diagnosis and treatment.
For Policy and Practice Reviews, the following article structure applies:
For Policy Briefs, the following article structure applies:
For Protocols articles, please make sure to follow these additional specific guidelines.
The submitted manuscript must include the following sections:
An Introduction outlining the protocol and summarizing its possible applications.
A Materials and Equipment section providing a list of reagents or other materials and/or equipment required to carry out the protocol. For basic-science protocols, the formulation of any solutions, e.g. buffers, should be clearly indicated in the Materials and Equipment section.
A Stepwise Procedures section listing, stepwise, the stages of the protocol. The timing of each step or related series of steps should be indicated, as should points at which it is possible to pause or halt the procedure without adversely influencing the outcome. For steps requiring repeated measurements, details of precision and accuracy should be presented. Limits of detection or quantification should also be stipulated where appropriate.
An Anticipated Results section describing, and illustrating with figures, where possible, the expected outcome of the protocol. Any analytical software or methods should be presented in detail in this section, as should possible pitfalls and artifacts of the procedure and any troubleshooting measures to counteract them. These last may also be described in an optional Notes section.
Code or training data sets referenced by the protocol and useful in its execution should be hosted in an online repository; their accession numbers or other stable identifiers should be referenced in the Anticipated Results.
The following additional information should be presented in the cover letter accompanying your manuscript:
The code should be novel and presented in human-readable format, adhere to the standard conventions of the language used (variable names, indentation, style and grammar), be well documented (comments in source), be provided with an example data set to show efficacy, be compilable or executable free of errors (stating configuration of system used).
The code should only call standard (freely accessible) libraries or include required libraries, and include a detailed description of the use-scenarios, expected outcomes from the code and known limitations of the code.
Please therefore make sure to provide access to the following upon submission:
Pullover winter Zara Zara Boutique Sweater Boutique winter Abstract explicitly including the language of code
Keywords including the language of the code in the following format:"code:language"” e.g.: "code:matlab"
Cover Letter including the utility of the code and its language
Main Text including:
Compressed Archive (.zip) of the reviewed version of the code as supplementary material (.zip archives are currently available under the “Presentation” dropdown menu).
All figures, tables, and images will be published under a Creative Commons CC-BY licence and permission must be obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including re-published/adapted/modified/partial figures and images from the internet). It is the responsibility of the authors to acquire the licenses, to follow any citation instructions requested by third-party rights holders, and cover any supplementary charges.
The maximum number of figures and tables for all article types are shown in the Summary Table. Frontiers requires figures to be submitted individually, in the same order as they are referred to in the manuscript, the figures will then be automatically embedded at the end of the submitted manuscript. Kindly ensure that each table and figure is mentioned in the text and in numerical order.
For graphs, there must be a self-explanatory label (including units) along each axis. For figures with more than one panel, panels should be clearly indicated using labels (A), (B), (C), (D), etc. However, do not embed the part labels over any part of the image, these labels will be added during typesetting according to Frontiers journal style. Please note that figures which are not according to the guidelines will cause substantial delay during the production process.
Permission must be obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including re-published/adapted/modified/partial figures and images from the internet). It is the responsibility of the authors to acquire the licenses, to follow any citation instructions requested by third-party rights holders, and cover any supplementary charges.
Frontiers takes concerns regarding image manipulation seriously. We request that no individual features within an image are modified (e.g. enhanced, obscured, moved, recycled, removed or added). Image processing methods (e.g. changes to the brightness, contrast or color balance) must be applied to every pixel in the image and the changes should not alter the information illustrated in the figure. Where cropped images of blots are shown in figures, a full scan of the entire original gel(s) must be submitted as part of the supplementary material. Where control images are re-used for illustrative purposes, this must be clearly declared in the figure legend. Image grouping and splicing must be clearly stated in the manuscript and the figure text.
For additional information, please see our Editorial Policies: 3.5 Image Manipulation.
Tables should be inserted at the end of the manuscript. If you use a word processor, build your table in word. If you use a LaTeX processor, build your table in LaTeX. An empty line should be left before and after the table.
Please note that large tables covering several pages cannot be included in the final PDF for formatting reasons. These tables will be published as supplementary material on the online article abstract page at the time of acceptance. The author will notified during the typesetting of the final article if this is the case. A link in the final PDF will direct to the online material.
For additional information, please see our Editorial Policies: 3.5 Image Manipulation.
Figure and table legends are required to have the same font as the main text (12 point normal Times New Roman, single spaced). Legends should be preceded by the appropriate label, for example "Figure 1" or "Table 4". Figure legends should be placed at the end of the manuscript (for supplementary images you must include the caption with the figure, uploaded as a separate file). Table legends must be placed immediately before the table. Please use only a single paragraph for the legend. Figure panels are referred to by bold capital letters in brackets: (A), (B), (C), (D), etc.
Figure images should be prepared with the PDF layout in mind, individual figures should not be longer than one page and with a width that corresponds to 1 column or 2 columns.
The following formats are accepted:
TIFF (.tif) TIFF files should be saved using LZW compression or any other non-lossy compression method. JPEG (.jpg)
EPS (.eps) EPS files can be uploaded upon acceptance
Images must be submitted in the color mode RGB.
All images must be uploaded separately in the submission procedure and have a resolution of 300 dpi at final size. Check the resolution of your figure by enlarging it to 150%. If the resolution is too low, the image will appear blurry, jagged or have a stair-stepped effect.
Please note saving a figure directly as an image file (JPEG, TIF) can greatly affect the resolution of your image. To avoid this, one option is to export the file as PDF, then convert into TIFF or EPS using a graphics software. EPS files can be uploaded upon acceptance.
Chemical structures should be prepared using ChemDraw or a similar program. If working with ChemDraw please use Frontiers ChemDraw Template, if working with another program please follow the guidelines given below:
Drawing settings: chain angle, 120° bond spacing, 18% of width; fixed length, 14.4 pt; bold width, 2.0 pt; line width, 0.6 pt; margin width 1.6 pt; hash spacing 2.5 pt. Scale 100% Atom Label settings: font, Arial; size, 8 pt.
Assign all chemical compounds a bold, Arabic numeral in the order in which the compounds are presented in the manuscript text. Figures containing chemical structures should be submitted in a size appropriate for incorporation into the manuscript.
Figures must be legible. Check the following:
Details of all funding sources must be provided in the funding section of the manuscript including grant numbers, if applicable. All Frontiers articles are published with open access under the CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license. Articles published with Frontiers automatically fulfil or exceed the requirements for open access mandated by many institutions and funding bodies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Medical Research Council, Research Councils UK, and the Wellcome Trust. Frontiers submits funding data to the Open Funder Registry which is a funder identification service from CrossRef resulting from collaboration between scholarly publishers and funding agencies.
Frontiers is committed to open science and open data, and we strongly encourage authors to maximize the availability of data included in their articles by making generated data publicly available where possible, and ensuring that published data sets are cited in accordance with our Sweater Rebecca winter Boutique Pullover Taylor nI5AwTYv. We aim to achieve the best community standards regarding data availability, ensuring increased levels of transparency and reproducibility in our published articles.
Our policies on data availability are informed by community-driven standards, which Frontiers endorses, such as the Transparency and Openness (TOP) guidelines, and the joint declaration of data citation principles produced by FORCE 11.
Authors are strongly encouraged to make all materials used to conduct their research available to other researchers. Research materials necessary to enable the reproduction of an experiment should be clearly indicated in the Materials and Methods section. Relevant materials such as protocols, analytic methods, and study material should preferably be uploaded to an online repository providing a global persistent link/identifier. If this is not possible, authors are strongly encouraged to make this material available upon request to interested researchers, and this should be stated in the manuscript.
Authors wishing to participate in the Resource Identification Initiative should cite antibodies, genetically modified organisms, software tools, data, databases, and services using the corresponding catalog number and RRID in your current manuscript. For more information about the project and for steps on how to search for an RRID, please click Pants winter Dress The Leisure Limited TY7ABBq.
Frontiers requires that authors make all data relevant to the conclusions of the manuscript available to editors and reviewers during peer-review to enable complete and objective evaluation of the work described.
We strongly encourage authors to make the raw data supporting the conclusions of the manuscript available in publicly accessible repositories. To comply with best practice in their field of research, authors are required to make certain types of data available to readers at time of publication in specific stable, community-supported repositories such as those listed below. Authors are encouraged to contact our data availability office at email@example.com prior to submission with any queries concerning data reporting.
Authors are encouraged to cite all datasets generated or analyzed in the study. Where datasets are cited, they should be included in the references list to maximize future usability. The following format should be used:
[Dataset] Author names. (year) Data Title. Repository name. Version. Persistant identifier
Frontiers requires that every published article contains a data availability statement detailing where the data supporting the conclusions of the manuscript can be found. This includes both data generated by the authors and data analyzed for the study. Submitted manuscripts that contain incomplete or incorrect statements will be prevented from entering the review process.
Datasets referred to in the data availability statement should be cited in accordance with our data citation guidelines, and should also be included in the statement.
Datasets are in a publicly accessible repository:
The datasets [GENERATED/ANALYZED] for this study can be found in the [NAME OF REPOSITORY] [LINK]
Datasets are available on request:
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.
All relevant data is contained within the manuscript:
All datasets [GENERATED/ANALYZED] for this study are included in the manuscript and the supplementary files.
Restrictions apply to the datasets:
The datasets for this manuscript are not publicly available because: [VALID REASON]. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to [NAME, EMAIL].
Data has been obtained from a third party:
The data analyzed in this study was obtained from [SOURCE], the following licenses/restrictions apply [RESTRICTIONS]. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to [NAME, EMAIL].
No datasets were generated for this study
|Data-type||Recommended Repositories||Metadata Standard|
|Genetic and genomic sequence (DNA/ RNA)^||GenBank
DNA Data Bank of Japan
European Nucleotide Archive
|Metagenomic sequence||EBI Metagenomics||MiXS|
|DNA and RNA trace or short-read sequencing data||NCBI Trace Archive NCBI Sequence Read Archive||MiXS|
|Genetic polymorphism data, including SNP and CNV data||dbSNP
European Variation Archive
|Gene expression data; chromatin immunoprecipitation data (deep-sequencing or microarray)||ArrayExpress
Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO)
|MIAME / MINSEQE|
|Data linking genotype to phenotype||dbGaP|
|Protein sequence data||UniProt|
|Proteome profiling data||PRIDE
|Small molecule, protein, protein complex data structural data||Crystallography Open Database
Cambridge Structural Database
wwPDB (Protein DataBank)
Electron Microscopy Databank
^ Genetic sequence variants should be annotated according to the guidelines established by the Human Variome Project.
|Data-type||Recommended Repositories||Metadata Standard|
|Protein-protein interaction data||Database of Interacting Proteins (DIP)||MIMIx|
|Metabolite and metabolome profiling data||MetaboLights
Human Metabolome Database
|Small-molecule screening data, chemical compound data||PubChem||CIF|
|Flow cytometry data||Flow Repository|
|Brain Imaging data / Neuroimaging data||OpenNeuro
NeuroVault [Statistical maps]
|Trait data||TRY database|
|Phenology data||National Phenology Network|
Dryad Digital Repository
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, in a recent 2012 amendment to the 1999 Zoological Code, allows all electronic-only papers, such as those published by the Frontiers journals, to have valid new taxon names and nomenclatural acts. However, these new names or nomenclatural acts must be registered in ZOOBANK and have associated Life Science Identifiers (LSIDs). Registration must be done by the authors before publication. Should your manuscript include any zoological new taxon names and/or nomenclatural acts, please ensure that they are registered prior to final publication.
Studies employing RNASeq for comparative transcriptomic analyses must contain at least 3 biological replicates (unless otherwise justified). Each biological replicate should be represented in an independent library, each with a unique barcode if libraries are multiplexed for sequencing. Validation on a number of key transcripts highlighted in the study is also highly recommended.
Full data accompanying these experiments must be made available to reviewers at the time of submission in a freely accessible resource e.g the sequence read archive (SRA) or European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). Depending on the question addressed in a manuscript, de novo assemblies of transcriptomes may also require multiple replicates and assembled sequences together with sequence annotation must be made freely available e.g figshare or dryad.
Authors should provide relevant information relating to how peptide/protein matches were undertaken, including methods used to process and analyse data, false discovery rates (FDR) for large-scale studies and threshold or cut-off rates for peptide and protein matches. Further information should include software used, mass spectrometer type, sequence database and version, number of sequences in database, processing methods, mass tolerances used for matching, variable/fixed modifications, allowable missed cleavages, etc.
Authors should provide as supplementary material information used to identify proteins and/or peptides. This should include information such as accession numbers, observed mass (m/z), charge, delta mass, matched mass, peptide/protein scores, peptide modification, miscleavages, peptide sequence, match rank, matched species (for cross-species matching), number of peptide matches, etc. Ambiguous protein/peptide matches should be indicated.
For quantitative proteomics analyses, authors should provide information to justify the statistical significance, including biological replicates, statistical methods, estimates of uncertainty, and the methods used for calculating error.
For peptide matches with biologically relevant post-translational modifications (PTMs) and for any protein match that has occurred using a single mass spectrum, authors should include this information as raw data or annotated spectra, or submit data to an online repository (recommended option; see table below).
Raw or matched data and 2-DE images should be submitted to public proteomics repositories such as those participating in ProteomeXchange. Submission codes and/or links to data should be provided within the manuscript.
Frontiers requires that all statements concerning quantitative differences should be based on quantitative data and statistical testing. For example, if a quantitative statement is made regarding the abundance of a certain protein based on a western blot, we request that the blot be scanned and the abundance assessed quantitatively using the correct analytic software (e.g. ImageJ) and statistics in order to support that statement.
Statistics should/must be applied for independent experiments. The number of independent samples and the deviation parameters (e.g. Standard Error of the Mean, Standard Deviation, Confidence Intervals) should be clearly stated in the Methods or the Figure legends. In general, technical replicates within a single experiment are not considered to be independent samples. Where multiple comparisons are employed (e.g. microarray data or Genome-wide association studies), any analysis should correct for false positive results. Descriptions of statistical procedures should include the software and analysis used, and must be sufficiently detailed to be reproduced.
Frontiers’ ethical policies are a fundamental element of our commitment to the scholarly community. These policies apply to all the Frontiers in journal series. Frontiers has been a member of the Committee of Publication Ethics since January 2015 and follows COPE guidelines where applicable.
Frontiers follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines which state that, in order to qualify for authorship of a manuscript, the following criteria should be observed:
Contributors, who do not meet these criteria, but nonetheless provided important contributions to the final manuscript should be included in the acknowledgements section. It is the authors responsibility to get written approval by persons named in the acknowledgement section. In order to provide appropriate credit to all authors, as well as assigning responsibility and accountability for published work, individual contributions should be specified as an Author Contributions statement. This should be included at the end of the manuscript, before the References. The statement should specify the contributions of all authors. You may consult the Frontiers manuscript guidelines for formatting instructions. Please see an example here:
AB, CDE and FG contributed conception and design of the study; AB organized the database; CDE performed the statistical analysis; FG wrote the first draft of the manuscript; HIJ, KL, AB, CDE and FG wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version.
The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal and editorial office during the submission process, throughout peer review and during publication. The corresponding author is also responsible for ensuring that the submission adheres to all journal requirements including, but not exclusive to, details of authorship, study ethics and ethics approval, clinical trial registration documents and conflict of interest declaration. The corresponding author should also be available post-publication to respond to any queries or critiques.
Material submitted to Frontiers must comply with the following policies to ensure ethical publication of academic work:
We reserve the right to contact the affiliated institutions of authors, who have not acted according to good research and publication practices.
Frontiers accepts manuscript submissions that are exact translations of previously published work. This should be clearly stated upon manuscript submission, in the cover letter and in the manuscript. Permission from the original publisher and authors needs to be sought and also stated, and the relevant documents should be provided as supplementary data for verification by the Editor and the editorial office. The original work from which the manuscript has been translated should be clearly referenced.
Please note that Frontiers may request copies of related publications if there are any concerns about overlap or possible redundancy.
Frontiers checks all submitted manuscripts for plagiarism and duplication, and publishes only original content. Those manuscripts where plagiarism or duplication is shown to have occurred will not be considered for publication in a Frontiers journal. It is required that all submissions must consist as far as possible of content that has not been published previously. In accordance with COPE guidelines, we expect that “original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.” This condition also applies to an author’s own work.
For submissions adapted from theses, dissertations, conference abstracts or proceedings papers, please see the following sections for more information.
Theses and Dissertations
Frontiers allows the inclusion of content which first appeared in an author’s thesis so long as this is the only form in which it has appeared, is in line with the author’s university policy, and can be accessed online. If the thesis is not archived online, it is considered as original unpublished data and thus is subject to the unpublished data restrictions of some of our article types. This inclusion should be noted in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript and the thesis should be cited and referenced accordingly in the Reference list. For some examples, please check our in Manuscript Requirements and Style Guide at 2.3.1
Conferences, Proceedings and Abstracts
Manuscripts that first appeared as conference papers must be expanded upon if they are to be considered as original work. At least 30% of content must be original. Authors submitting such work are required to:
- Cite the conference in the Acknowledgements section, or the references section if applicable
- Seek permission for reuse of the published conference paper if the author does not hold the copyright (proof of permission should be submitted as supplementary material, or sent to firstname.lastname@example.org with the manuscript ID upon submission)
Although permissible, extended manuscript content which previously appeared online in non-academic media, e.g. blogs, should be declared at the time of submission in a cover letter or in communication with the relevant editorial office for consideration.
Frontiers takes concerns regarding image manipulation seriously. We request that no individual features within an image are modified (eg. enhanced, obscured, moved, recycled, removed or added). Image processing methods (e.g. changes to the brightness, contrast or color balance) must be applied to every pixel in the image and the changes should not alter the information illustrated in the figure. Where cropped images of blots are shown in figures, a full scan of the entire original gel(s) must be submitted as part of the supplementary material. Where control images are re-used for illustrative purposes, this must be clearly declared in the figure legend. If any form of image processing is legitimately required for the interpretation of the data, the software and the enhancement technique must be declared in the methods section of the manuscript. Image grouping and splicing must be clearly stated in the manuscript and the figure text. Any concerns raised over undeclared image modifications will be investigated and the authors will be asked to provide the original images.
A conflict of interest can be anything potentially interfering with, or that could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, full and objective peer review, decision-making or publication of articles submitted to Frontiers. Personal, financial and professional affiliations or relationships can be perceived as conflicts of interest.
All authors and members of Frontiers Editorial Boards are required to disclose any actual and potential conflicts of interest at submission or upon accepting an editorial or review assignment.
The Frontiers review system is designed to guarantee the most transparent and objective editorial and review process, and because handling editor and reviewers' names are made public upon the publication of articles, conflicts of interest will be widely apparent.
Failure to declare competing interests can result in the rejection of a manuscript. If an undisclosed competing interest comes to light after publication, Frontiers will take action in accordance with internal policies and Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines.
What Should I Disclose?
As an author, disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest should be done during the submission process. Consider the following questions and make sure you disclose any positive answers:
If you failed to disclose any of the potential conflicts of interest above during submission, or in case of doubt, please contact as soon as possible the Frontiers Editorial Office at email@example.com with the details of the potential conflicts.
The handling editors and reviewers will be asked to consider the following potential conflicts of interest before accepting any editing or review assignment:
|FAMILY||1. Are any of the authors a spouse or significant other, a member of the same family or a very close personal friend? Review Editors should also not be a member of the same family as the handling editor.|
|COLLABORATIONS||2. Are you currently hosting or have hosted a Frontiers Research Topic with any of the authors within the past 2 years? Are you currently hosting a Frontiers Research Topic with the Editor?
3. Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated on a research project or a publication with any of the authors within the past 2 years?
4. Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated with any of the authors as an advisor or in any other direct supervisory capacity in the past five years?
5. Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated with any of the authors as a student or in any other direct subordinate capacity in the past five years?
Note: Review Editors should not accept assignments if they have a close professional relationship with the handling editor, which in their view could affect the objectivity of the review.
|AFFILIATION||6. Are you affiliated with the same institution as the editor? Are you affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors? If so, has this resulted in interactions, collaborations, or mutual interests with the authors that would compromise your impartiality in conducting this review?
7. Are you a current member of a committee or department that coincides with an affiliation with the editor or any of the authors?
|FINANCIAL||8. Do you have a business or professional partnership with any author?
9. Do you have financial interests or business relations with any organization involved in this research or in the preparation of the manuscript?
Sweater Zara winter Boutique Zara Pullover winter Boutique 10. Do you have any financial interest or competing interests in the content of the manuscript that might affect your ability to perform an objective review?
All research submitted to Frontiers for consideration must have been conducted in accordance with Frontiers guidelines on study ethics. In accordance with COPE guidelines, Frontiers reserves the right to reject any manuscript that editors believe does not uphold high ethical standards, even if authors have obtained ethical approval or if ethical approval is not required.
All research involving regulated animals (i.e. all live vertebrates and higher invertebrates) must be performed in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations. Frontiers follows International Association of Veterinary Editors guidelines for publication of studies including animal research. Approval of research involving regulated animals must be obtained from the relevant institutional review board or ethics committee prior to commencing the study. Confirmation of this approval is required upon submission of a manuscript to Frontiers; authors must provide a statement identifying the full name of the ethics committee that approved the study. For most article types, this statement should appear in the Materials and Methods section. An example ethics statement:
This study was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Basel Declaration and recommendations of [name of guidelines], [name of committee]. The protocol was approved by the [name of committee].
Should the study be exempt from ethics approval, authors need to clearly state the reasons in the cover letter and manuscript. Studies involving privately owned animals should demonstrate the best practice veterinary care and confirm that informed consent has been granted by the owner/s, or the legal representative of the owner/s. Frontiers supports and encourages authors to follow the ARRIVE guidelines for the design, analysis and reporting of scientific research.
All manuscripts describing studies where death is an endpoint will be subject to additional ethical considerations. Frontiers reserves the right to reject any manuscripts lacking in appropriate justification.
Research involving human subjects is expected to have been conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. Studies involving human participants must be performed in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines, with the appropriate institutional ethics committee's prior approval and informed written consent from all human subjects involved in the study including for publication of the results. Conformation of this approval is required upon submission of a manuscript to Frontiers; authors must provide a statement identifying the full name of the ethics committee that approved the work and confirm that study subjects (or when appropriate, parent or guardian) have given written informed consent. For most article types, this statement should appear in the Materials and Methods section. An example ethics statement:
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of [name of guidelines], [name of committee]. The protocol was approved by the [name of committee]. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Should the study be exempt from ethics approval, authors need to clearly state the reasons in the cover letter and manuscript. In order to protect subject anonymity, identifying information should not be included in the manuscript unless such information is absolutely necessary for scientific purposes AND explicit approval has been granted by the subjects.
Frontiers follows the ICMJE recommendations on the protection of research participants, which state that patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. We require non-essential identifiable details to be omitted from all manuscripts, and written informed consent will be required if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained.
It is the responsibility of the researchers and authors to ensure that these principles are complied with, including the obtaining of written, informed consent.
Written informed consent can be documented on a form provided by an institution or ethics committee, and it must clearly state how the identifiable data will be used. Frontiers also makes available its own form , which may be used for this purpose, but use of the Frontiers form is not required if a suitable alternative form of consent, meeting the ICMJE recommendations, is used. We consider it to be the authors’ duty to encourage participants or patients whose consent for publication is required to read and understand the ICMJE guidelines, for their information prior to completing the consent form. Participants should also be encouraged to ask any questions and to ensure they are comfortable before they sign the consent form.
The completed consent forms should be stored by authors or their respective institutions, in accordance with institutional policies. Frontiers does not need to view the completed form, and this should not be included with the submission. The completed form should be made available on request from the editor or editorial office, both during the review process and post-publication.
The determination of what constitutes identifiable data lies with our editors and editorial office staff, and manuscripts may be rejected if the required consent documents cannot be provided. Please note that written informed consent for publication is required for all case report articles where the patient or subject is identified or identifiable.
Frontiers recognizes our responsibility to correct errors in previously published articles. If it is necessary to communicate important, scientifically relevant errors or missing information, and compelling evidence can be shown that a major claim of the original article was incorrect, a Correction should be submitted detailing the reason(s) for and location(s) of the change(s) needed in the cover letter. Corrections can be submitted if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading, e.g. an error in a figure that does not alter conclusions OR an error in statistical data not altering conclusions OR mislabeled figures OR wrong slide of microscopy provided, or if the author / contributor list is incorrect when a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included.
The title of the submission should have the following format: "Corrigendum: Title of original article". It is advised to use the corrigendum Word and LaTeX templates.
If the error was introduced during the publishing process, the Frontiers Production Office should be contacted.
As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Frontiers abides by their guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction.
Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:
While all potential retractions are subject to an internal investigation and will be judged on their own merits, Frontiers considers the following reasons as giving cause for concern and potential retraction:
Readers who would like to draw the editors' attention to published work that might require retraction should contact the authors of the article and write to the journal, making sure to include copies of all correspondence with authors.
Please find more details on our comments and complaints policy here
In our commitment to continuously improve our website, we welcome your feedback, questions and suggestions. Please visit our Help Center to find guidance on our platform or contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
For any ethical concerns, please contact us at email@example.com.
Frontiers reviews are standardized, rigorous, fair, constructive, efficient and transparent;
Two review phases: an independent review phase and an interactive, collaborative phase;
Reviewers and the handling editor are acknowledged on published articles;
Average time to final decision: 85 days.
The Frontiers Collaborative Review aims to maximize manuscripts’ quality while protecting the rights of authors to publish their work in a fair and transparent process.
Frontiers Research Topic e-books, which are themed article collections, undergo the same Frontiers Collaborative Review process as spontaneous submissions.
Peer review is handled by active researchers and scholars, carefully appointed to our editorial boards according to strict criteria of excellence, and who certify the accuracy and validity of research with their names on the published articles.
We believe that peer review needs to be centered on objective criteria of the soundness and validity of the work presented. At the same time, it should be rigorous, fair, constructive, accountable, and transparent for everyone involved. Last, but not least, peer review needs to be efficient. Therefore, we have introduced radical innovations in web technologies to implement our Collaborative Review.
The Frontiers Collaborative Review provides and guarantees:
Our Collaborative Review Forum unites authors, reviewers and the Associate Editor – and if need be the Specialty Chief Editor – in a direct online dialogue, enabling quick iterations and facilitating consensus. Editors and reviewers work with the authors to improve their manuscript.
Frontiers promotes a strict separation between review and evaluation. Frontiers editors and reviewers have the mandate to focus only on objective criteria evaluating the soundness of the study and to ensure that the results are valid, the analysis is flawless and the quality as high as possible. We publish all papers assessed to be technically correct and of good quality. Reviewers may recommend rejection based exclusively upon objective errors. Judgments regarding the importance of a paper can be made through open post-publication reviews and we use objective impact metrics - reflecting the opinion of the entire community – to spotlight outstanding discoveries.
To guarantee the most rigorous and objective reviews, the identities of reviewers remain anonymous during the review period. When a manuscript is accepted for publication, the names of the reviewers who endorsed its publication appear on the published article, without exceptions. If a reviewer recommends rejection or withdraws during any stage of this process, his/her name will not be disclosed. Handling editors' names are also made public on the published article, acknowledging their contribution.
As a result of this process, reviews are conducted constructively, with editors and reviewers holding a level of accountability and responsibility for the paper by providing rigorous feedback that delivers the highest possible quality publication. Please also note that, as Frontiers operates a single-blind peer review process, the authors will not be anonymous to the reviewers.
Frontiers provides a review template to make reviews systematic and convene the efforts of reviewers exclusively on objective issues. The review must focus solely on the quality of both the research and the manuscript, and must aim at providing constructive comments to bring the final paper to its best quality. This allows fair, rapid, comprehensive and comparable assessment of research. The evaluation of the research will be done successively by means of the Frontiers Evaluation System. Moreover, Frontiers provides authors with the highest quality review service by assigning only the world’s top researchers to the Frontiers boards of editors.
Frontiers’ publishing platform is custom developed. We offer one of the fastest platforms amongst academic publishers. Our Review Forum guides authors, reviewers and editors smoothly through the review process and alerts them when any action is required. This has shortened the average time from submission to final decision to 90 days.
Post-publication evaluation of the work’s significance and impact is done democratically by the community using the Frontiers online impact metrics and tiering system. Read more about these here.
The full Frontiers Collaborative Peer Review consists of two phases.
During the Independent Review phase, the reviewers assess the manuscript independently from each other and from the authors, according to a standardized review template. These templates are adapted to each article type.
During the Interactive Review phase, authors and reviewers can interact with each other through real-time comments in the discussion forum. The Associate Editor and, if required, the Specialty Chief Editor can also enter the Review Forum and oversee the review process.
The following articles types are attributed a full, standardized peer review:
Code, Research Snapshot, Clinical Study Protocol, Policy and Practice Reviews, Protocols, Brief Research Report, Case Report, Community Case Study, Conceptual Analysis, Curriculum Instruction and Pedagogy, Empirical Study, Evaluation, Policy Brief, Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Hypothesis & Theory Articles, Methods Articles, Perspective Articles, Technology Reports, Clinical Trial Articles, Mini Reviews, General Commentaries, Opinion Articles, Data Report, Protocols and Pants winter Boutique RBX winter Boutique Track Track Pants RBX winter Pants Boutique Track RBX 8TwfCwWyEq.
Following the Frontiers online manuscript submission, the editorial office conducts a pre-screening for quality control. If a manuscript meets Frontiers’ criteria for quality, an Associate Editor from the relevant Specialty Section is immediately invited to supervise the manuscript’s peer review process. After a preliminary content check, the Associate Editor may decide to either send the manuscript out for review or recommend it for immediate rejection to the Specialty Chief Editor.
In the latter case, the Specialty Chief Editor may confirm the Associate Editor’s recommendation of immediate rejection due to the following reasons:
Objective errors in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in the manuscript that prevent further consideration.
Ethical issues were identified in the manuscript that prevent further review or publication.
The content of this manuscript does not meet the standards of rigor required by the journal to be considered for publication (which includes serious language issues).
The Specialty Chief Editor may, nevertheless, override the Associate Editor's recommendation and decide that the manuscript deserves being reviewed, in which case he/she will assign the manuscript to a new Associate Editor who agrees to send the manuscript for review.
The Associate Editor then invites reviewers to participate; most article types require at least two reviewers to take part. These reviewers can either be invited from the Frontiers board of Review Editors or appropriately recruited among the experts in the field.
The reviewers are asked to submit the standardized Frontiers Independent Review Report via the online review forum within a few weeks after accepting the assignment. The Associate Editor is automatically notified as soon as each of the Independent Review Reports is submitted.
During the Independent Review phase, the reviewers assess the paper independently from each other and the authors, using our standardized review template.
Once all reviewers have submitted an Independent Review Report, the Associate Editor is responsible for activating the next phase of the Frontiers Review, i.e. the Interactive Review Forum, to release the review reports to the authors. If the editor would like to recommend rejection during the Independent Review phase, they can do so by activating the interactive review forum with major concerns, providing the authors with the reports, and a unique opportunity for rebuttal during a defined timeframe.
Once the Associate Editor activates the Interactive Review Forum, authors are immediately notified of this and granted access to the forum, where they are able to view the reviewers' comments. Authors are asked to respond and/or submit a revised manuscript within 15, 25 or 35 days, depending on the level of revisions requested by the Associate Editor.
The Associate Editor can access and post comments in the review forum anytime. Additionally, the Associate Editor monitors the discussions occurring between authors and reviewers within this forum, and ensures not only the timeliness, but also the constructiveness of the participants’ interaction. Should a dispute arise at this stage, the Associate Editor must act as a mediator, working with all parties involved to resolve the issues and even inviting new reviewers for further opinions if needed. If the disagreement persists, the Specialty Chief Editor is then obliged to enter the Interactive Review Forum, assess the situation and take a final decision, as to whether the review should be ended by rejecting the manuscript or continuing with a new set of reviewers and handling Editor.
When a disagreement cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of a reviewer, he/she has the right to withdraw from the review at any time, in which case the Associate Editor may choose to invite another reviewer.
At this stage, a manuscript may be rejected for the following reasons:
Objective errors in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in this manuscript that prevent further consideration.
Ethical issues were identified in this manuscript that prevent further review or publication.
The content of this manuscript does not meet the standards of rigor required by the journal to be considered for publication.
The manuscript could not be sufficiently revised by the authors to address the concerns raised by the reviewers or editor during the review process.
The review is complete only once all review comments have been addressed to the reviewers' satisfaction.
Should a dispute arise that may result in the rejection of the manuscript, the authors may trigger an arbitration. In the first place, the Associate Editor will mediate and involve all reviewers in a discussion aimed at resolving the dispute. If a resolution cannot be agreed upon, the Specialty Chief Editor is alerted and can opt to bring in additional reviewers and handling editor for consultation. A manuscript can be rejected if the arbitration rules that the objective error stands. Reviewers are entitled to trigger an arbitration, too, if they judge that the authors are reluctant to make required changes. Reviewers may withdraw from the review process if they disagree with the other reviewers and the editor, the authors and the arbitration ruling (in which case their identity remains undisclosed). The withdrawal of a reviewer requires the recruitment of a new one, which slows down the process. Therefore, authors are encouraged to co-operate as much as possible in addressing the concerns of the reviewers involved with their manuscript.
If the reviewers endorse the publication of the manuscript in its current form, they must finalize their Interactive Review Reports, which automatically notifies the Associate Editor. For acceptance to be considered, the manuscript must have an Associate Editor and the minimum number of independent reviewers assigned, and endorsed, for that article type. The Associate Editor can then either accept the final version of the manuscript, or request further changes as necessary, typically within a few days. Acceptance of a manuscript can be decided on by Associate Editors and does not require the approval of the Specialty Chief Editor.
The publication fee is payable within 30 days of acceptance and is required before final publication of the manuscript.
While submissions can be rejected by the Chief Editor, the Associate Editor who handles a manuscript can only recommend to reject a manuscript. The Chief Editor may override an Associate Editor's recommendation to reject the manuscript and insist to call in further reviewers to continue the review process.
If the manuscript is a Focused Review, which can only be submitted following an invitation after tiering selection, the previous Associate Editor and reviewers are invited to review the new manuscript (if available to take on the assignment). The manuscript is written by the previous authors and is an abridged and revised version of the original article following the author guidelines for Focused Reviews. It requires a full peer review with regard to technical language, since it addresses a broader, less specialized community.
If the submitted manuscript is a Frontiers Commentary, , the Specialty Chief Editor is invited to review the manuscript. Frontiers Commentaries are written by the Associate Editor or one of the reviewers who reviewed the original article and requires peer review with regard to technical language, since it addresses a less specialized community.
The following articles types are attributed a shortened peer review:
Short peer reviews differ from full peer reviews in two aspects: they are directly forwarded to the Interactive Review phase and they may be reviewed by the Associate Editor alone. It is up to the Associate Editor’s consideration if further reviewers are invited to the review process.
Therefore, following the Frontiers online manuscript submission, an Associate Editor of the relevant Frontiers Specialty is immediately invited to take on the manuscript editorial assignment, which encompasses the role of the reviewer, too. Since no Independent Review Report is required, the manuscript enters the Interactive Review Forum immediately.
Interactive Review, manuscript acceptance and rejection follow the same rules established for full peer reviews.
Frontiers is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes publication malpractice and conflicts of interest very seriously (see our Author Conditions). Personal, financial and professional affiliations or relationships can be perceived as conflicts of interest. All authors and all members of Frontiers Editorial Boards are required to disclose any actual and potential conflicts of interest at submission or upon accepting an editorial or review assignment.
The Frontiers review system is designed to guarantee the most transparent and objective editorial and review process, and because Associate Editor and reviewers' names are made public upon the publication of articles, conflicts of interest will be openly apparent.
As an author, disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest should be done during the submission process. Consider the following questions and make sure you disclose any positive answers. If you failed to disclose any of the potential conflicts of interest below during submission, please contact the Frontiers editorial office with the details as soon as possible.
1. Did you or your institution at any time receive payment or services from a third party for any aspect of the submitted work?
2. Do you have financial relationships with entities that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work?
3. Do you have any patents and copyrights, whether pending, issued, licensed and/or receiving royalties related to the research?
4. Do you have other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work?
Associate and Review Editors:
Associate Editors, Review Editors and reviewers are requested to fill a questionnaire before taking on an assignment to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Research Topic Editor will also be asked to complete the questionnaire upon assignment to a manuscript under their Research Topic. If you can answer yes to any of the questions below, Frontiers considers this to be a potential conflict of interest. Such potential conflicts might be between the editor and authors, the reviewers and authors, or the reviewers and authors.
If you have any doubt about whether a relationship or an interest qualifies as a conflict of interest, it is always better to disclose this potential conflict such that editors and the Frontiers Editorial Office can determine whether it necessitates disclosure on the article, or whether an alternate reviewer or editor should be assigned.
Associate Editors must report actual or potential conflicts of interest to the journal's Editorial Office. Reviewers must report actual or potential conflicts of interest both to the journal's Editorial Office and the Associate Editor handling the manuscript.
In case of doubt, please contact your Journal's office by email, or the main Frontiers Editorial Office at firstname.lastname@example.org. You should provide the details of the situation and the potential conflict(s) that you would like to report.
|FAMILY||1. Are any of the authors a spouse or significant other, a member of the same family or a very close personal friend? Review Editors should also not be a member of the same family as the handling editor.|
|COLLABORATIONS||2. Are you currently hosting or have hosted a Frontiers Research Topic with any of the authors within the past 2 years? Are you currently hosting a Frontiers Research Topic with the Editor?|
|3. Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated on a research project or a publication with any of the authors within the past 2 years?|
|winter Zara Boutique Boutique Zara Sweater winter Pullover 4. Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated with any of the authors as an advisor or in any other direct supervisory capacity in the past three years?|
|5. Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated with any of the authors as a student or in any other direct subordinate capacity in the past three years?|
|Note: Review Editors should not accept assignments if they have a close professional relationship with the handling editor, which in their view could affect the objectivity of the review.|
|AFFILIATION||6. Are you affiliated with the same institution as the editor? Are you affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors? If so, has this resulted in interactions, collaborations, or mutual interests with the authors that would compromise your impartiality in conducting this review?|
|7. Are you a current member of a committee or department that coincides with an affiliation with the editor or any of the authors?|
|FINANCIAL||8. Do you have a business or professional partnership with any author?|
|9. Do you have financial interests or business relations with any organization involved in this research or in the preparation of the manuscript?|
|10. Do you have any financial interest or competing interests in the content of the manuscript that might affect your ability to perform an objective review?|
External reviewers at Frontiers should hold a PhD or an equivalent degree, or the equivalent number of years to a recognized qualification, in the relevant field of research. It is also encouraged that all external reviewers have sufficient experience in scientific publishing, either from the perspective of an author or reviewer.
Frontiers does wish to assist in the development of early career researchers and in offering them exposure to the peer review process. To foster this development, we do allow early career researchers to collaborate in the review process with a senior researcher. Please contact the Editorial Office for any questions on how to proceed in such cases.
External reviewers are subject to the same conflicts of interest restrictions as Frontiers Review Editors, and must report actual or potential conflicts of interest both to the journal's Editorial Office and the Associate Editor handling the manuscript.
Frontiers takes issues relating to publication ethics very seriously. Frontiers endeavors to follow the guidelines and best practice recommendations published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Frontiers is a member of COPE and is also represented on the COPE council by its Editorial Office Manager. Frontiers follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines including its recommended authorship criteria. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine is listed as a journal following ICMJE recommendations on its website.
Authors are expected to abide by ethical standards in regards to the attribution of authorship, conflicts of interest, respect of ethical considerations in the use of experimental animal and human participants, financial support disclosures and participation in the peer review process. Additionally, cases of invalid or fraudulent data, plagiarism and dual submissions will constitute grounds for rejection. Please refer to the "winter David Boutique Meister Dress Casual HA4Rddxn" for complete details on the authors’ responsibilities.
Frontiers editors and reviewers are also expected to abide by ethical standards in regards to conflicts of interest, confidentiality of the reviewed papers, objective evaluation of the work and preservation of reviewers’ anonymity until acceptance. Editors bear the authority and responsibility for the acceptance of papers.
While Frontiers strives for transparency regarding the identity of reviewers and editors, the external posting of review reports or discussions from the review process is strictly prohibited. As contributions made to the interactive review process come from a number of different parties, the decision to share these contributions are not the reserve of any one party.
Frontiers will investigate allegations of misconduct both before and after publication. Corrections or retractions will be published if necessary, in order to maintain the integrity of the academic record. The Frontiers Editorial Office should be contacted immediately on suspicions of misconduct.
Avenue du Tribunal Fédéral 34
CH – 1005 Lausanne
Tel +41(0)21 510 17 40
Dress Boutique Casual winter Forever 21 qwqTfgZHz Fax +41 (0)21 510 17 01
For all queries regarding manuscripts in Review and potential conflicts of interest, please contact email@example.com
For queries regarding Research Topics, Editorial Board applications, and journal development, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
|23||24||25||26||27||2821 Boutique winter Casual Dress Forever xYccrnqwfH||29|