I was interviewed by Leonid Schneider about the review process at FrontiersIn. In his following blog post it looks like I was admitting to allow bad science to be published. This is not true and I distance myself from any such impressions.

I left a comment under his post. However, no clarification was added to the text by Leonid, since. Therefore I am posting this disclaimer here:

In the post it says:

Eckmeier cautioned though that many submitted manuscripts were of very low quality and gave examples for some cases:

“There were about 2-3 re-submissions, before both reviewers endorsed publication. In one case both reviewers agreed that for publication they needed to add more data. The data were provided and both reviewers endorsed publication.  In one case both reviewers agreed that the work was not publishable. According to the message in the review forum, the authors retracted the submission”.

However, here is the sentence that actually followed the statement about bad manuscripts:

However, usually the work is scientifically sound, which is the only criterion for review
editors at Frontiers, since the impact of studies is determined through the tier system.

What I meant to indicate by adding this was that most of the revisions (that caused the resubmissions), were about asking for clarifications, and correcting issues with figures, etc.

Further, I don’t think 2-3 re-submissions are a sign that anything is particularly bad or difficult about the study. I find that a rather typical number, also outside of FrontiersIn.