It is necessary to emphasise that the concerns raised below have not arisen in response to recent events. Serious discontent has been growing for some time – there is plenty of evidence of this in previous (and extremely valid) reviews.
Where to start?
I suppose the crux of the matter is that the processes and motivations driving decision-making appear to be completely and utterly flawed. The disconnect between the “front lines” and upper management is astounding at times, and the past couple of years have been peppered with a long list of conflicting objectives, unrealistic targets, and failed projects. Genuine attempts to improve quality and integrity have been reined in when it has inevitably been realised that focusing on such concepts compromises “growth”.
Nobody is under any illusions about what it means to operate successfully within the academic publishing industry, but the widely-held concerns and objections do not stem from naivety or idealism. Staff have been asked to work in ways that conflict not only with personal ethics but also with the values Frontiers claims to adhere to so closely. Many of the published policies misrepresent the actual workflows imposed on specialists, and the reality of day-to-day operations conflicts with the goal of making research and knowledge dissemination genuinely open and equitable.
Top-down communication within the company is often thoughtless, vague, or even dishonest, and negative feedback from the lower levels seems to be largely ignored or discouraged. Changes are made and instructions are given without any apparent consideration of the people who will be affected, and expectations relating to duties, workload, and timescales are sometimes unrealistic to the point of being dehumanising. Automation/AI technologies are certainly useful but they are objectively unable to do the work that we do. Upper management may have overestimated the sophistication of these technologies, but perhaps they have just realised that indiscriminate growth will be easier with less humanistic input.
Rapid expansion is often unsustainable, and there seem to be issues across many industries at this time. Difficult decisions may need to be made, and it is never pleasant, but it is at least somewhat reassuring when matters are handled with transparency and empathy. People will not respond well to claims that all cost-saving avenues have been investigated when there is evidence to the contrary, or to being drip-fed information that is intentionally vague. This approach causes a great deal of distress, and compromises the mental, physical, and financial wellbeing of all affected.
