Frontiers in Immunology Submission Guide (2026)

Frontiers in Immunology operates through 20+ specialty sections, each with distinct editorial preferences and practical selectivity levels. You don't just submit to "Frontiers in Immunology." You submit to Clinical Immunology, Cancer Immunology, Autoimmunity, or another specific section.

Most competitive sections:

• Clinical Immunology (focuses on patient studies, biomarkers, therapeutic trials)
• Inflammation (requires strong mechanistic data with clinical relevance)
• Immunological Memory (prefers longitudinal studies or vaccine research)

More accessible sections:

• Autoimmunity (accepts case series and observational studies)
• Vaccines and Molecular Therapeutics (welcomes early-phase development work)
• Nutritional Immunology (emerging field with fewer submissions)

Choose your section carefully. The same paper submitted to Clinical Immunology might get desk rejected, while the identical study could get accepted in Autoimmunity. Each section has different editors, different reviewer pools, and different standards for clinical impact.

Section selection strategy:

Read the last 6 months of papers in your target section. Match the study design, sample size, and clinical context. If most papers in Clinical Immunology have 200+ patients and yours has 45, consider Autoimmunity instead.

The specialty section editors communicate with each other. If you submit to the wrong section, they'll transfer your paper rather than reject it. But transfers add 2-3 weeks to the process, and the receiving section might have different standards.

Cancer Immunology gets the most submissions but accepts systematic reviews more readily than original research. If you have a meta-analysis of immunotherapy trials, start there. For basic T-cell biology without cancer context, try Immunological Tolerance and Regulation.

The section structure matters more at Frontiers than at traditional journals. Nature Immunology editors handle scope decisions centrally. At Frontiers, the specialty section editor makes the initial call. Pick the right section, and you're talking to someone who understands your specific research area.

The submission portal requires ORCID registration for all authors before you can start. Don't begin formatting your manuscript until every co-author has an ORCID ID. The system won't let you proceed without them.

Required documents:

• Cover letter (specific template requirements)
• Manuscript file (LaTeX or Word)
• Figure files (minimum 300 DPI, maximum 10MB each)
• Data availability statement
• Competing interests declaration
• Ethics statements (IRB approval numbers, patient consent documentation)

Formatting specifics:

Word limit varies by article type. Original Research allows 12,000 words including references. Reviews can go up to 15,000 words. Methods articles are capped at 8,000 words. The portal counts words automatically and will block submission if you exceed limits.

Figures can be embedded in the manuscript file during initial submission. If accepted, you'll need to provide high-resolution separate files. The journal accepts color figures without additional fees, unlike many traditional publishers.

The cover letter template is specific. You need: research question, methodology summary, key findings, clinical relevance statement, and suggested reviewers. Use these cover letter examples as templates, but customize for Frontiers' collaborative review philosophy.

Submission checklist:

• All authors have ORCID IDs
• Specialty section selected
• Word count within limits
• Ethics approvals documented
• Data sharing plan included
• Competing interests declared
• Three suggested reviewers provided

The portal saves your progress automatically. You can submit in multiple sessions. But once you hit "submit," you can't modify anything. Triple-check your specialty section choice before final submission.

Average time to first decision is 80 days, but this varies by specialty section and manuscript complexity. Systematic reviews take longer than original research. Clinical trials with patient data get expedited review.

Timeline breakdown:

• Editorial screening: 7-14 days
• Reviewer recruitment: 14-21 days
• Peer review period: 30-45 days
• Editorial decision: 7-10 days

The collaborative review model encourages reviewers to see each other's comments and build consensus. You'll get more constructive feedback than adversarial criticism. Reviewers know their comments are shared, which tends to make reviews more professional and helpful.

During review:

You can track progress through the submission portal. Status changes from "Under Review" to "Required Reviews Completed" to "Editor Decision Started." Don't contact the editorial office unless the process exceeds 90 days.

If reviewers request major revisions, you get 60 days to respond. Minor revisions have a 30-day deadline. The system sends automatic reminders as deadlines approach.

Revision strategy:

Address every reviewer comment specifically. The collaborative model means reviewers will see your response and judge whether you've addressed their concerns adequately. Don't dismiss any feedback, even if you disagree.

The biggest mistake is assuming Frontiers has lower standards because the journal publishes at scale. The broader scope changes throughput, but editors still filter hard for translational relevance, section fit, and methodological credibility.

Top rejection triggers:

1. Poor clinical context - Describing molecular mechanisms without connecting to disease or therapy
2. Weak systematic review methodology - Missing PROSPERO registration, inadequate search strategies, no quality assessment
3. Wrong specialty section - Submitting autoimmunity research to Clinical Immunology section

Authors often submit basic immunology papers because they think Frontiers will accept anything. The journal wants translational relevance, not just novel biology. If your T-cell study doesn't connect to autoimmune disease, cancer, or vaccines, try a basic immunology journal instead.

Systematic reviews fail when methodology is sloppy. Register your protocol with PROSPERO before starting. Use multiple databases for literature searches. Include quality assessment tools like Newcastle-Ottawa or Cochrane risk-of-bias. The journal publishes many systematic reviews, but only rigorous ones.

Original Research (60% of publications): Clinical studies, translational research, biomarker validation. Basic mechanistic studies need strong clinical relevance. Sample sizes matter less than study design quality.

Reviews (25% of publications): Systematic reviews and meta-analyses perform better than narrative reviews. PRISMA compliance is mandatory. Expert opinion pieces rarely get accepted unless from recognized thought leaders.

Clinical Trial (10% of publications): Phase I-III trials, real-world effectiveness studies, post-market surveillance data. Requires trial registration and follows CONSORT guidelines.

Methods (5% of publications): New techniques, protocols, or analytical approaches. Must demonstrate advantage over existing methods with validation data.

Success varies by article type and section. Systematic reviews often perform better when methodology is strong, while original research and clinical trial papers face more direct scrutiny on section fit, ethical handling, and translational value.

Position your work appropriately. Don't submit a narrative review when you could do a systematic review. Don't call a case series "original research" when it belongs in Clinical Trial category.

Compare options based on your career stage and research type. Consider these factors when choosing journals alongside Frontiers' specific strengths and limitations.

Choose Nature Immunology if: Your basic research has broad immunological significance, you have strong mechanistic data, and you can wait 6+ months for review.

Choose Immunity if: You're reporting paradigm-shifting findings, have comprehensive experimental validation, and prioritize prestige over publication speed.

Choose Journal of Immunology if: Your work is solid basic immunology without clinical connection, you prefer traditional peer review, and you want faster publication than Nature journals.

Choose Clinical Immunology if: Your research focuses specifically on clinical applications, you have patient data, and you want a specialized audience over broad readership.

Frontiers works best for translational research that connects basic findings to clinical relevance. If your paper sits between basic and clinical research, Frontiers offers a good middle ground with reasonable review times and constructive feedback.

The collaborative review model suits early-career researchers who benefit from detailed, educational feedback. Senior researchers who prefer traditional anonymous review might find other journals more comfortable.

1. Frontiers submission platform guidance and policies for authors
2. Recent Frontiers in Immunology research articles and section pages for scope comparison
3. COPE-aligned publication ethics guidance used by Frontiers