by Bob Uttl (Feb 10, 2024) (see Feb 15, 2024 update at the end) (see further Feb 22, 2024 update at the end)
Submission to Frontiers in Psychology and Acceptance
On October 7, 2023, we (Uttl, Violo, & Gibson) submitted a manuscript for publication in Frontiers in Psychology. On January 3, 2024, peer-reviews reviews were finalized, and on January 4, 2024, the article was accepted for publication by the editor, Dr. Snehlata Jaswal. The acceptance letter stated in part:
Dear Dr. Uttl,
…
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript “Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average” has been approved for production and accepted for publication in Frontiers in Psychology, section Cognitive Science.
…
Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers in Psychology, Email dated Jan 4, 2024 at 09:20AM MST
The article as accepted, before any copy proof corrections, is available here: Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average. The article is now available on PsyArXiv Preprints (or here).
On or about January 4, 2024, Frontiers published the abstract of the accepted paper on frontiersin.org (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1309142/abstract, if previous link has content missing go to the abstract as captured on February 7, 2024).
Copy proofs were produced on or about January 9, 2024. As per the first page of the proofs, the accepted paper was reviewed by: (a) Sebastian Weirich, Institute for Education Quality Improvement (IQB), Germany; (b) Peter Graf, University of British Columbia, Canada; and (c) Stewart Longman, University of Calgary, Canada, and edited by: Snehlata Jaswal, Sikkim University, India. The Frontiers uploaded proofs on January 9, 2024; and the corresponding author submitted the author’s proof corrections on January 12, 2024.
By February 6, 2024, the paper abstract posted on the Frontiers website accumulated Altmetrics score of over 1,600; over 50,000 total views (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1309142/abstract, if previous link has content missing go to the abstract as captured on February 7, 2024); and over 2,000 X posts from X users (https://frontiers.altmetric.com/details/158097957).
Frontiers’ Rejection #1 (by Catriola Leslie)
Unexpectedly, on February 6, 2024, 3:25AM MST, the Frontiers sent an email to the authors stating in part:
Dear Professor Uttl,
Thank you for your submission “Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average” to Frontiers in Psychology.
We are sorry to say that we are rejecting the manuscript in its current form. Following the abstract being published online, a number of overstated claims were brought to the attention of our Research Integrity team. These claims were raised to the Specialty Chief Editor, who has since highlighted issues with the reporting, methods and analysis and the scope fit for the journal that warrant rejection.
…
Kind regards,
Catriola Leslie
Catriola Leslie, Email dated Feb 6, 2024
The email did not mention nor acknowledge that the paper was already accepted, proofs approved, etc.. Furthermore, the email did not disclose what the allegations were, did not disclose who made them, and Frontiers in Psychology never bothered to contact any of the authors regarding the allegations. As to the “issues” highlighted by the unidentified “Specialty Chief Editor”, the issues as detailed were unfounded.
On February 6, 2024, 8:39AM MST, we immediately alerted Catriola Leslie that the paper was already accepted. As of February 8, we received no response.
On February 6, 2024, at 11:19PM (Mountain Time), we complained about the Frontiers conduct with Catriona Leslie, Dr. Jaswal, and Dr. Cleeramans (including psychology.editorial.office@frontiersin.org and production.office@frontiersin.org). In the email, we requested “any letters sent to the Specialty Chief Editor regarding our paper”, we requested that the Specialty Chief Editor be identified, and we made it clear that it is not clear to us how Frontiers in Psychology would handle this “post-acceptance rejection of our paper” publicly but we were equally clear that we “will follow up on it.”
Notably, we responded briefly to the alleged “issues” highlighted by the unidentified “Specialty Chief Editor.”
In the complaint, we also demanded an immediate refund of the already paid APC fees (USD 3,295.00).
As of February 8, 2024, we received no response nor acknowledgment of our complaint and the fees have yet to be refunded by Frontiers. As of February 8, 2024, despite the Frontiers’ rejection of our already accepted paper, the Frontiers continued to display our abstract on their website and our paper as accepted in Frontiers in Psychology.
On February 8, 2024, at 2:06PM MST, I reminded Frontiers that we “have not received an acknowledgment nor response to my prior two emails in response to Frontiers in Psychology ‘rejecting’ the already peer-reviewed and already accepted paper.” This reminder was copied to several members of Frontiers’ “Leadership” including Henry Markram, Kamila Markram, Mirjam Eckert, and Frederick Fender (emails to Steve Koltes and Stefan von Holtzbrinck bounced back).
On February 9, 2024, the matters started to move; Frontiers woke up from their slumber.
On Feb 9, 2024, at 6:08AM MST, we received an email from Catriola Leslie acknowledging our concerns but not addressing them in any meaningful way. Moreover, Catriola Leslie stated: “Should you address the concerns raised by the Specialty Chief Editor, the manuscript can be reinstated and will be reconsidered for publication in Frontiers in Psychology.” It is unclear whether Catriola Leslie read our email but she was certainly oblivious to the fact that we already addressed those concerns in the email she was responding to.
Frontiers’ Rejection #2 (by Frontiers in Psychology)
On Feb 9, 2024, we received yet another rejection email written by “Frontiers in Psychology.” The email stated:
Dear Dr. Uttl,
Unfortunately, I have to inform you that your manuscript “Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average” cannot be accepted for publication in Frontiers in Psychology, section Cognitive Science.
The reason for this decision is:
The manuscript could not be sufficiently revised by the authors to address the concerns raised by the reviewers or editor during the review process.
We are sorry to say that we are rejecting the manuscript in its current form. Following the abstract being published online, a number of overstated claims were brought to the attention of our Research Integrity team. These claims were raised to the Specialty Chief Editor, who has since highlighted issues with the reporting, methods and analysis and the scope fit for the journal that warrant rejection [this paragraphs is verbatim identical to that written by Catriola Leslie on Feb 6, 2024 — see above]
…
With best regards,
Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers in Psychology, Email dated Feb 9, 2024
A verbatim copied paragraph suggests that the author of this Rejection #2 was again Catriola Leslie unless the author forgot to give credit for this paragraph to Catriola Leslie.
Frontiers’ Revision of Historical Facts/Fabrication of New Facts
On Feb 6, 2024 13:16PM MST, Review Forum showed the manuscript completed all stages of peer review and the final decision was made with “Article accepted for publication” on Jan 4, 2024. The top block prominently showed: “Your manuscript has been accepted for publication.”
On Feb 7, 2024 10:19 PM MST, Review Forum/Status & History showed that “Corresponding Author Bob Uttl submitted the author’s proof corrections and approved the author’s proof”. It also showed that the article was reviewed by “Peter Graf, Sebastian Weirich, Stewart Longman.”
On Feb 8, 2024, 14:24 MST, Review Forum showed that “Your manuscript has been accepted for publication.”
On Feb 9, 2024 (or a little earlier), a flurry of history-revising activities took place on Frontiers’s website in what appears to be an attempt to erase Frontiers’ acceptance of the article and publication of the abstract to the world:
- On Feb 9, 2024 05:25 AM MST: Review Forum revised history and showed that Review Finalized did not happen, Final Validation did not happen, and Final Decision did not happen (the check marks were removed). The statement “Your manuscript has been accepted for publication.” in the top block disappeared. Nevertheless, the detailed history still showed “Article accepted for publication” as the last historical event.
- On Feb 9, 2024, 05:21 AM MST, the link to the published abstract gave an error: “404 Not found”. The published abstract was removed from Frontiers website, and all links to the abstract in Media, X, Facebook, etc. stopped working.
- On Feb 9, 2024, 11:03 AM MST, Review Forum showed “Your manuscript has been rejected. See reasons.” in the top block, and a new historical event was added: “Article rejected by Editorial Office Frontiers in Psychology” on Feb 9, 2024. Interestingly, in further history-revising activities, Review Finalized was again check-marked, Final Validation remained unchecked, and Final Decision was check-marked.
Response to Frontiers Rejection #2
On February 9, 2024, 13:26 PM MST, I responded to “Frontiers in Psychology” newest rejection notification. I stated in part:
Dear “Frontiers in Psychology” (or whoever wrote the email):
Thank you for informing me, once again, that our manuscript “Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average” cannot be accepted for publication in Frontiers in Psychology, section Cognitive Science.” Unfortunately, “Frontiers in Psychology’s” statement is misinformation. The manuscript clearly could be accepted “for publication in Frontiers in Psychology, section Cognitive Science” because it was so accepted on January 4, 2024, by Editor Dr. Snehlata Jaswal. Recall that you informed the entire world about it by publishing your acceptance together with the abstract online. This is now a historically documented fact that, according to Altmetrics, millions of readers know about (https://www.altmetric.com/details/158097957). Your removal of the published abstract from your website does not change anything on that fact either.
In the next paragraph, you say that “The reason for this decision is: The manuscript could not be sufficiently revised by the authors to address the concerns raised by the reviewers or editor during the review process.” Unfortunately, “Frontiers in Psychology’s” statement is a bold falsehood, another misinformation. The historical record documents that the manuscript was reviewed by four reviewers. Reviewer 1 failed to read the manuscript sufficiently carefully and made patently false statements in his review, for example, he responded to the question “Is a PRISMA flow diagram included?” with “No.” Reviewer 2 responding to the same question responded “Yes” (accurately). We addressed Reviewer 1 comments, Reviewer 1 appeared unhappy with our response and recommended rejection on Dec 11, 2023. Reviewers 2, 3, and 4 all finalized their reviews recommending acceptance. The editor accepted the manuscript on January 4, 2024. Therefore, contrary to your reason for the decision, “The manuscript” was “sufficiently revised by the authors to address the concerns raised by the reviewers or editor during the review process.” I add that the editor made that judgment on January 4, 2024. Your decision to reject an already accepted article did not happen during “the review process” but well after the review process was finalized, the final decision issued, the abstract published, and decision communicated to the whole world.
…
As I pointed out in my Feb 6, 2024 email to Catriola Leslie, this matter is of public concern, undermines public trust in Frontiers review and publication process, and is worthy of public knowledge and investigation.
Best regards,
Dr. Bob Uttl
Dr. Bob Uttl, Response to Frontiers in Psychology dated Feb 9, 2024
Where is USD 3,295.00?
Frontiers in Psychology charges USD 3,295.000 for an article of this type. On January 4, 2024, immediately upon the manuscript acceptance, Frontiers Media SA issued the invoice for USD 3,295.00 payable by February 3, 2024.
On January 22, 2024, I paid the invoiced USD 3, 295.000 to Frontiers. Frontiers record shows it was paid.
On February 6, 2024, in the Rejection #1 (see above), Catriola Leslie stated that “…if paid, the APC will be reimbursed.”
As of today, February 10, 2024, the APC charge of USD 3,295.00 was not refunded by Frontiers Media SA. Apparently, Frontiers Media SA can issue an invoice within minutes or at least the same day they accept the paper but refunding the money — the activity which should take a few minutes — is not Frontiers Media SA’s priority.
Lots of Questions but No Answers
Who brought “a number of overstated claims” “to the attention of our [Frontiers] Research Integrity team” “Following the abstract being published online” (see Frontiers’ Rejection #1 by Catriola Leslie)? What were the claims that someone thought were “overstated”? What conflicts of interest did that someone have? In brief, who did not want this article published?
Why did Catriola Leslie or Frontiers (whoever was responsible) choose to throw their integrity into the wind and choose not to follow Frontiers’ own Comments and complaints policy on how to deal with post-publication concerns?
Who rejected the article? Catriola Leslie? Who was the mysterious “Specialty Chief Editor”? Who ordered the history-revising activities? Who is responsible for bold falsehoods in Frontiers’ Rejection #2?
Who determines whether a word “merely” is “demeaning”? Who determines whether the use of adjectives such as “massive” is founded or “unfounded”? Does Frontiers have the Ministry of Truth or the Ministry of Language Use or the Ministry of Acceptable Frontiers-Speak? I searched Frontiers for any signs of such Ministries but could not find any.
Since when has it become acceptable for Frontiers in Psychology to make patently false statements to the authors in rejection letters?
Since when did it become a thing to reject already accepted papers?
Read our paper for yourself on PsyArXiv Preprints (or here).
Updates (Feb 15, 2024)
A request that Dr. Davelaar, Dr. Jaswal, Dr. Cleeremans, and Catriola Leslie clarify their roles and responsibilities in Frontiers’ rejection of our already accepted article
After having received no response to my repeated requests for clarifications, on February 12, 2024, 09:39MST, I sent an email to Dr. Eddy Davelaar (e.davelaar@bbk.ac.uk), Dr. Snehlata Jaswal (sjaswal@cus.ac.in), Dr. Axel Cleeremans (axcleer@ulb.ac.be), and Catriola Leslie (psychology@frontiers.org) requesting that “Dr. Davelaar and/or all those involved in the situation” clarify their roles and responsibilities in the rejection of our already accepted article, removal of already published abstract, etc. Please read the email here.
The specific questions asked were:
- 1. Dr. Davelaar, are you, as described by Catriola Leslie in her emailed rejection letter “…the Specialty Chief Editor, who has since highlighted issues with the reporting, methods and analysis and the scope fit for the journal that warrant rejection”?
- 2. Dr. Davelaar, did you write the list of “issues” detailed in Catriola Leslie’s rejection email, including those starting with “Title” and ending with two paragraphs of “Scope issues”? Catriola Leslie wrote that you did (assuming you are Specialty Chief Editor of Frontiers in Psychology Cognitive Science). If not, who did? Where did those issues came from? It seems to me that they were copy/pasted from somewhere. If so where from? Did you read the article yourself before you highlighted those issues?
- 3. Did you, Dr. Davelaar, write and/or approve the second Frontiers rejection email dated February 9, 2024, starting with “Unfortunately, I have to inform you…”?
- 4. Are you, Dr. Davelaar, taking responsibility, as the Specialty Chief Editor, for all the communications between Frontiers and our author team?
- 5. Who directed Frontiers’ staff to remove our published abstract from the Frontiers’ website?
- 6. Who is responsible for the decision not to share with us the details of the alleged “overstated claims” in our article and for denying
- us an opportunity to address any such supposedly “overstated claims”?
Unfortunately, as of today, Feb 15, 2024, I have received no response from Dr. Davelaar, Dr. Jaswal, Dr. Cleeremans, Catriola Leslie, or anyone else.
An email from Dr. Elena Vicario dated Feb 12, 2024
On Feb 12, 2024, I received an email from Dr. Elena Vicario. Dr. Vicario further explained that “the [published] abstract was flagged to our attention due to several posts being made online on the social media platform X.” However, yet again, Dr. Vicario did not disclose these X posts. We note that there are 2,600+ X posts about our abstract.
In the next paragraph, Dr. Vicario stated: “However, I would like to reiterate that your manuscript has been rejected based on concerns expressed by the chief editor [Dr. Davelaar, Specialty Chief Editor]…” Frontiers policies do not have the mechanism for rejecting already accepted article and already published abstract. Only options are “corrigeum” and “retraction.” (see my response to Dr. Vicario — forthcoming)
Dr. Vicario also explained that falsehoods in Frontiers Rejection #2 were due to “technical limitations”: “Due to technical limitations, there are a limited set of standard ‘reasons” to reject manuscript.” If true, Frontiers system’s limitations forces editors to lie because they do not have an option to tell the truth. According to Dr. Vicario, the manuscript history is also fabricated due to technical limitations of Frontiers system which does not have a mechanism to undo what was already completed witout fabricated the history in the process.
Finally, Dr. Vicario stated: “I would like to assure you that the chief editor [Dr. Davelaar] has looked at the email sent responding to the concerns raised, however, their concerns remain.” According to Dr. Vicario, Dr. Davelaar doubled down on his unwarranted, false, and patently false concerns about our article.
Accordingly, we addressed Dr. Davelaar’s concerns one more time, in detail, and publicly: When Chief Editors’ reviews go off the rails: Frontiers/Dr. Eddy Davelaar’s criticism of our accepted meta-analysis and our detailed response.
A response to Dr. Elena Vicario, dated Feb 15, 2024
On Feb 15, 2024, I responded to Dr. Elena Vicario’s email. I addressed several issues:
- Dr. Vicario was not involved in Frontiers’ actions and had no personal knowledge, was not qualified/had no expertise in the matters, and the matters had nothing to do with misconduct or malpractice.
- Frontiers continues to hold “several posts” on X that triggered Dr. Davelaar’s review of our paper in secrecy and ignores that there were 2,600+ other posts on X. I asked for the “several posts” yet again.
- Dr. Vicario misread or did not consider Frontiers’ own policies, in particular the detailed policy stating that the acceptance is decided by the handling editor (in this case Dr. Jaswal who was also Assistant Specialty Chief Editor). I further pointed out that Frontiers has two additional policies: (a) the “Malpractice and Misconduct” (scroll to the bottom) policy and (b) the “Comments and complaints policy“. Neither policy allows unpublishing already published abstract. Furthermore, their use is restricted to serious matters, and not to Dr. Davelaar’s word and/or language preferences. Neither policy allows Dr. Davelaar to demand that we replace “mere”, “merely”, and/or “massive” with something else post-acceptance and post-publication (in the case of the published abstract).
- Dr. Vicario’s claim that our paper was merely “provisionally accepted” was false, and inconsistent with Frontiers public communications.
- Dr. Vicario clarified that our article was rejected post-acceptance and post-publication of the abstract based on “concerns expressed by the chief editor [Dr. Davelaar]”. I pointed out that we previously addressed Dr. Davelaar’s issues and that, given that no one seems to have pondered what we wrote, I prepared a more fulsome response and posted it publicly: When Chief Editors’ reviews go off the rails: Frontiers/Dr. Eddy Davelaar’s criticism of our accepted meta-analysis and our detailed response.
- Dr. Vicario explained that Frontiers/Dr. Davelaar’s falsehoods and history fabrications were due to “a limited set of standard ‘reasons’ to reject a manuscript” and due to “technical limitations”, respectively. I pointed out that it makes no difference how Specialty Chief Editor generates a lie, whether he clicks on what he knows to be false “standard ‘reason'” or whether he writes the false reason himself. A lie is a lie regardless of how it was generated as long as the person generating the lie knows it was false at the time or acted in reckless disregard of the truth.
- Dr. Vicario assured me that Dr. Davelaar “has looked at the email sent responding to the concerns raised, however, their [Dr. Davelaar’s] concerns remain.” According to Dr. Vicario, Dr. Davelaar doubled down on his unwarranted, false, and patently false claims about our article. Accordingly, I posted a more fulsome response to Dr. Davelaar’s concerns: When Chief Editors’ reviews go off the rails: Frontiers/Dr. Eddy Davelaar’s criticism of our accepted meta-analysis and our detailed response.
- Frontiers refunded USD 3,295.00 on Feb 12, 2024, but did it incorrectly. As a result, I am short of CAD 125.55.
- Dr. Vicario stated: “If a revised manuscript is sent with the edits requested, the manuscript will be reinstated and assessed by them both [Dr. Davelaar and Dr. Jaswal].” I explained that (a) I cannot fix that which is not broken, (b) I cannot persuade Dr. Davelaar to read and comprehend what we wrote, (c) Dr. Davelaar demonstrated his unwillingness or inability to perform his duties as Speciality Chef Editor by making unwarranted, false, and patently false statements about our article. Accordingly, I will not be wasting my time by submitting anything to Dr. Davelaar for consideration.
I was clear that Frontiers could still reverse Dr. Davelaar’s actions but would have to act promptly. First, Frontiers would have to apologize. Second, Frontiers would have to publish our unpublished abstract, publish our article, and notify thousands of people who requested it through their portal (and send it to them). I was also clear that I was not holding my breath for it. Read my response here.
A refund of USD 3, 295.00 on Feb 12, 2024
I am pleased to report that Frontiers finally refunded USD 3,295.00 but not the total cost of sending them USD 3,295.00. Unfortunately, Frontiers did it incorrectly. Frontiers did not deliver what I paid for and, accordingly, had to reverse the charge rather than send back USD 3,295.00. When I paid the APC charges, the charge on my credit card was CAD 4,566.55 which included the APC USD 3,295.00, CAD 111.38 exchange fee, and 1.38590283 exchange rate. When Frontiers sent back USD 3,295.00 I only received CAD 4,441.00 at 1.347799696 exchange rate. This leaves me short of CAD 125.55 due to differences in exchange rates and exchange fees. We will see if Frontiers refuds the CAD 125.55 difference.
Updates (Feb 22, 2024)
Dr. Fred Fenter offers “to discuss this matter with you in a zoom call” but no apology
On Feb 19, 2024, 03:06AM, email arrived from Dr. Fred Fenter offering “to discuss this matter with your in a zoom call” but did not offer any apology and did not offer to reverse Dr. Davelaar’s actions.
On Feb 19, 2024, 11:24AM, I responded to Dr. Fenter and pointed out that I have yet to receive “any apology from the Frontiers, a precondition for anything else.” I have also explained that we submitted the manuscript elsewhere and that the peer-reviews are underway, and if Dr. Fenter wants to apologise and offer guarantees to reverse Dr. Davelaar’s actions, Dr. Fenter should do that in writing:
Accordingly, we submitted the manuscript elsewhere and the peer-reviewer process in that journal is now underway. It would be problematic at this point to withdraw the manuscript from the review, and it could be done only with that journals’ permission. However, I would never do that unless you apologize first, clearly admit your errors, and give your guarantees that you will restore the abstract and publish the article as accepted by the Frontiers prior to Dr. Davelaar’s meddling with it. If that is what you want to tell me in person, please do tell me in writing and I will then confer with my co-authors.
Dr. Uttl
I also reminded Dr. Fenter that CAD 125.55 remains outstanding:
Otherwise, CAD 125.55 remains outstanding. Unless you pay it, promptly (within the next 48 hours), after February 22, 2024, I will inform my credit card that you did not deliver what I paid for and that the original charge ought to be removed (see my earlier email).
Dr. Uttl
On Feb 21, 2024, 03:30AM MST, Dr. Fenter responded:
Dear Prof. Uttl,
I am sorry to hear that you think a call would not have been useful, I am confident we could have resolved the matter.
Now that your paper has been submitted elsewhere, we will ask our accounting department to make the requested transfer to your credit card. My assistant Lia (in copy) will coordinate the reimbursement for you.
Very best regards,
Fred Fenter
Dr. Fred Fenter
On Feb 21, 2024, 9:30AM MST, I responded to Dr. Fenter reiterating that the first step is apology, the second step is guarantee of reversal of Dr. Davelaar’s actions, and only then it may be useful to discuss the matter. For clarity, I have recapped the wild ride of our paper with Frontiers:
As you know, Frontiers accepted our paper after peer-review, published its abstract, collected the APC charges of $3,295.00, and then, under mysterious circumstances, Dr. Davelaar, Specialty Chief Editor, “rejected” paper already accepted by Dr. Jaswal, Assistant Specialty Chief Editor. Dr. Davelaar did so without even consulting me or seeking my input. Frontiers said that Dr. Davelaar did so based on “several posts” (out of 2,600+) on X that were “flagged” for Frontiers by persons unknown (or known but secretly held by Frontiers). Next, Dr. Davelaar fabricated/made up false issues with our paper and used those fabricated issues as “justification” for his “rejection” of our already accepted paper. Next, Frontiers provided further fabricated reasons for Dr. Davelaar’s rejection falsified the publication record and history, and then attempted to explain these later falsifications by claiming that these later falsifications occurred because Frontiers system did not allow Dr. Davelaar to choose the truthful answer.
Dr. Uttl
I reiterated that “I am looking forward to your apology and guarantees on behalf of Frontiers. Finally, I thanked Dr. Fenter “for moving to refund the rest of the [APC] money.
So far, the apology did not yet arrive and neither did guarantees.
It seems that all of the following meets Frontiers’ minimum standards of honesty, integrity and transparency in scientific publishing:
- censoring peer-reviewed science in response to a mini mob of “several [secret] posts” on X (out of 2,600+ in this instance)
- not seeking any input from authors when the mini mob of “several [secret] posts” on X is “flagged” for Frontiers
- keeping the mini mob of “several [secret] posts” on X secret from the authors (how does that enhance transparency in publishing?)
- fabricating issues with the paper by Chief Specialty Editor(s) (in this instance by Dr. Davelaar) to justify “rejection” of already accepted peer-reviewed paper and already published abstract of that paper (making the stuff up to censor science and disposal of censored scientists has been a hall mark of various dictatorial regimes such as a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR)
- doubling down and insisting that Chief Specialty Editor’s fabricated issues are in fact true issues (according to Frontiers communicators)
- Editors and Chief Specialty Editors not communicating with/not responding to authors about their decisions, keeping silent, and sending other workers to do communicating/responding (workers who have no understanding of the matters as they are not subject matters experts )
But perhaps not, perhaps Dr. Fred Fenter will still apologise, offer guarantees, and hold Chief Speciality Editors to more acceptable standards of honesty, integrity and transparency.
Frontiers refunded outstanding CAD 125.55
On or about Feb 21, 2024, Frontiers refunded outstanding CAD 125.55. So far only the additional mistaken charge of CAD 131.98 showed up on my credit card but processing tends to be a bit delay so I assume the refund will arrive shortly.