Post

Quite interesting. Review seems simlar to Frontiers' format (except 70% "voting" threshold for publishing, rather than 100%)? Actually not sure how it substantially differs from any other open-review journal..?

Interesting, no idea frontiers did this. I have a pretty negative impression from frontiers, since they invited me to be an editor for "frontiers in remote sensing", despite having almost no qualifications for such a role. @ecologistgreen.bsky.social , do u have comments on this?

My opinion on Frontiers is not positive either, for many reasons. Their process involves a review and a discussion stage with authors (at least a few years ago), and all reviewers have to agree to publication (or withdraw from the process). Reviewer names are then added to paper front page.

Happy to chime in here @jnaslund.bsky.social and @rtbecard.bsky.social! Thanks for the questions We differ from Frontiers in a few ways - first, our peer review process is double-blind and collaborative from the start. We bring together reviewers to discuss the science and provide cohesive feedback

We are also working to make sure that no single reviewer (or Editor) carries more weight than any other to reduce bias. We bring on average 5 reviewers to each article, and only publish articles that 70% of reviewers approve of. This way it's rigorous and transparent.