Frontiers, a leading Gold Open Access publisher, has voiced serious concerns over the Finnish national journal classification forum, julkaisufoorumi (JUFO), and its recent decision to downgrade the classification of Gold Open Access journals. The decision, confirmed on 16 December, has sparked criticism from both Frontiers and the broader research community in Finland.
JUFO, established to assess the quality of scholarly journals, has reclassified Frontiers as a “grey publisher” without, according to Frontiers, providing clear evidence to justify the move. Frontiers, along with researchers affected by the decision, has expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and consultation during the evaluation process.
In a statement, Frontiers highlighted its longstanding collaboration with Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture, emphasizing shared goals of advancing open science. The sudden reclassification, however, undermines this partnership and raises concerns about potential harm to Finnish researchers and their ability to publish openly.
Frontiers argues that Gold Open Access has become a widely accepted publishing model, now accounting for 50% of all published articles. The model emphasizes transparency, accessibility, and impact, making it a cornerstone of modern scientific communication.
“Targeting publishers dedicated to Gold Open Access is unfair and arbitrary,” Frontiers stated, adding that journal assessments should be based on quality and service standards rather than the publishing model. All downgraded Frontiers journals, it emphasized, meet JUFO’s Level 1 criteria when evaluated individually—criteria that should have protected their rankings.
The publisher accused JUFO of restricting academic freedom by pressuring researchers toward traditional publishing routes instead of allowing them to select journals based on professional judgment.
Frontiers further criticized JUFO for failing to provide concrete evidence or clear justification for its decision. It pointed out that the forum’s reasoning relied heavily on third-party references that lack consensus within the academic community.
In addition, Frontiers noted the absence of detailed feedback from JUFO regarding its journals—feedback that could have been delivered anonymously to address any shortcomings. Instead, the decision appeared to lean on hearsay, anecdotal information, and discredited sources rather than robust evaluations.
Frontiers has urged JUFO to clarify how many comments it received about its journals during the evaluation process and to publish this input transparently.
Frontiers pledged to continue engaging with JUFO to resolve the issue and called on researchers affected by the decision to make their voices heard.
The controversy underscores broader tensions surrounding academic publishing models, the transition to open science, and the need for clearer standards in evaluating journal quality. Researchers and publishers alike are watching closely as discussions unfold, with hopes for a resolution that prioritizes fairness, transparency, and academic freedom.
Click here to read the original press release.
