Frontiers tightens authorship and publication ethics rules across submitted manuscripts
Frontiers has laid out a detailed framework for how manuscripts are credited, reviewed, and screened before publication, with the policy centering on authorship integrity, truthful affiliations, and zero tolerance for plagiarism, fabrication, or duplicate submission. The document treats publication ethics as a core part of scientific reliability rather than a clerical formality. In practice, the policy places responsibility on authors, reviewers, editors, and the journal office to make sure the published record reflects who actually did the work and what was actually done.
A paper with the wrong name on it is not a harmless administrative mistake.
Authorship must reflect real intellectual contribution
The authorship policy draws a sharp line between named authors and contributors. Only individuals who made a substantial contribution to the research and writing of the manuscript may appear in the byline, while other participants belong in the acknowledgments section. Frontiers also rejects any arrangement in which payment or compensation is exchanged for authorship without a qualifying contribution, treating that practice as unethical and prohibited.
This approach tracks with the ICMJE authorship criteria, which require participation in data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation; drafting or critical revision of the manuscript; approval of the version submitted for publication; and accountability for the integrity of the work as a whole. The policy does not reduce authorship to seniority, institutional status, or funding power. It makes authorship contingent on work that is measurable, defensible, and directly tied to the manuscript itself.
For contributors who do not meet the full authorship threshold but still played an important role, acknowledgment is the proper route. Even there, written permission is required before those names are included. That safeguard helps prevent casual or unwanted attribution and keeps the acknowledgments section from becoming a substitute byline.
Affiliation accuracy is part of the scientific record
Frontiers requires authors to list the institution where the research was conducted as the primary affiliation. Additional affiliations can be added later through the submission system. False, fabricated, or knowingly inaccurate affiliations are treated as a serious breach of publishing ethics and may trigger investigation by the relevant institution.
This rule matters because affiliations are not decorative. They identify where the work was performed, where resources were available, and which institution shares responsibility for the research environment. When a former institution or a prestigious unrelated institution is listed instead, the publication record stops reflecting reality. In biomedical publishing, where institutional reputation often influences trust, that can distort how readers interpret expertise and provenance.
CRediT roles bring more precision to contribution statements
Frontiers uses the CRediT taxonomy to standardize contribution reporting across 14 roles, including conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, software, supervision, validation, visualization, and both forms of writing. The system forces a more granular accounting of who did what, which is especially useful in multicenter or interdisciplinary research where the line between design, analysis, and manuscript preparation can blur.
The policy also states that each co-author must have participated in writing the original draft and/or critically reviewed and edited the manuscript. That requirement keeps the byline tied to direct intellectual engagement rather than passive association. For large collaborative studies, this can reduce disputes later because the contribution categories are recorded at submission rather than reconstructed after acceptance.
Corresponding authors carry the operational burden
The corresponding author serves as the main point of contact with the journal during submission, peer review, and publication. The role also includes ensuring that the manuscript satisfies journal requirements on authorship, ethics approval, clinical trial registration, and conflicts of interest. After publication, the corresponding author remains responsible for responding to questions or critiques.
That responsibility is more than administrative convenience. It creates a clear chain of accountability for the version of record and for any concerns that emerge after publication. When editorial questions arise about consent, authorship, or data integrity, the corresponding author is the designated point through which those issues are routed.
Duplicate submission, redundancy, and falsification trigger rejection
Frontiers states that it publishes only original content. Manuscripts must not have been published elsewhere or be under consideration elsewhere in whole or in part. Submitting the same work to multiple journals is classified as duplicate submission and is considered misconduct. Redundant publication, including salami slicing or minor repackaging of the same data, is also prohibited.
The policy goes further by prohibiting fabrication and falsification of data or images. It also rejects manuscripts prepared by paper mills or other commercial entities that write papers on behalf of named authors. To enforce these standards, submissions are screened for redundancy and for textual overlap using CrossCheck powered by iThenticate. Manuscripts with problematic overlap are not considered for publication.
These rules are aimed at preserving the reliability of the literature. When the same dataset appears multiple times under slightly different packaging, clinicians and researchers can be misled about sample size, effect strength, or reproducibility. When data or images are altered to fit a narrative, the paper ceases to be a trustworthy scientific account.
Inclusive language and inclusive imagery are part of editorial ethics
Frontiers also places explicit weight on inclusive language and inclusive image policy. Manuscripts should avoid terminology that could be interpreted as hostile or offensive on the basis of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, or health status. The language policy acknowledges that acceptable terminology can shift across geography and time, and it expects authors, reviewers, editors, and staff to remain sensitive to those changes.
The image policy follows the same logic. Visual material should be culturally sensitive, socially responsible, and representative of the subject matter. Stereotypes are discouraged, and underrepresented communities should not be erased when images are selected for publication. Editors may request alternative images if the original material fails those standards.
A journal’s ethics policy is often read as a set of prohibitions, but here it functions as a statement about what the publication record should be: accurate, accountable, and respectful. In that sense, the rules on inclusive language and imagery are not separate from scientific integrity. They shape who is represented, how patients and communities are described, and whether the final publication treats people as subjects of study rather than stereotypes.
Reuse rules draw a hard line around prior publication
The policy also distinguishes between permissible reuse and unethical repetition. Theses and dissertations may be included if they are the only prior form, comply with university policy, and are accessible online. Conference papers and abstracts can be expanded, but only if the submission adds substantial new material, new analysis, or new conclusions. Frontiers says that at least 30% of the content should be original in such cases.
That threshold is aimed at ensuring that a journal article contributes something meaningfully beyond the conference version. In biomedical publishing, where preliminary results are often circulated before full peer review, the difference between a conference abstract and a full paper can have real consequences for how evidence is interpreted and cited.
The policy closes the door on sloppy reuse, but it also makes one expectation plain: transparency. If material has appeared before, authors are expected to disclose it, cite it, and explain how the new submission adds to the literature rather than recycling it.