Frontiers in Plant Science Impact Factor

The trend shows a meaningful decline from the 2021 peak of 6.6, followed by a partial recovery to 4.8 in 2024. The drop from 2022 to 2023 (5.6 to 4.1) was steeper than what most plant science journals experienced, possibly reflecting changes in the journal's article mix and increased volume.

The five-year JIF of 5.7 being well above the two-year (4.8) suggests that older papers (published during the higher-JIF years) continue to perform well in the citation window. For authors, 4.8 is the operative number to use for current planning.

In plant science, a 4.8 JIF is solidly Q1 but clearly below the field's top specialty journals. For context: Plant Cell is around 12, New Phytologist around 8, and Plant Physiology around 7. Frontiers in Plant Science's value proposition is not prestige; it is broad scope, open access, fast turnaround, and editorial accessibility.

The journal's high volume (2,400+ articles/year) means acceptance rates are relatively high compared to more selective plant journals. That is not a criticism. It is the journal's editorial model: publish sound science across all of plant biology with open-access visibility. For many plant science researchers, especially those in applied or descriptive fields, this model is exactly right.

The five-year JIF (5.7) being 19% above the two-year (4.8) reflects the journal's contribution of methods papers, gene expression studies, and field-level analyses that keep getting cited over time.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Frontiers in Plant Science, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections and revision requests.

Phenotypic description without genetic or molecular mechanism. Frontiers in Plant Science's author guidelines state that accepted manuscripts must "provide substantial advances to knowledge" within their specialty section. For papers reporting plant responses to stress, treatment, or environmental conditions, the journal's reviewers increasingly expect a mechanistic explanation at the gene, protein, or metabolite level, not just a phenotypic description. Papers that characterize growth inhibition, yield reduction, or morphological changes without identifying the molecular pathway responsible face consistent requests for additional mechanistic data. The description of what happened is insufficient; the journal expects an investigation of why it happened.

Multi-cultivar or germplasm screening without a hypothesis about genetic basis. Frontiers in Plant Science receives a high volume of papers screening multiple cultivars or accessions for a trait of interest. These papers are valued when they identify specific genetic or physiological predictors of the observed variation, not just document that variation exists. Papers that screen 30 cultivars for drought tolerance, rank them by performance, and stop at the phenotypic characterization without connecting trait variation to genetic markers, physiological mechanisms, or agronomic predictors are consistently flagged as hypothesis-free surveys that require additional analysis to be publishable.

Genomic or transcriptomic dataset paper without functional validation of key findings. Frontiers in Plant Science's specialty sections covering genomics, molecular plant biology, and plant physiology receive many papers based on RNA-seq, metabolomics, or proteomics experiments. The most common revision pattern: papers that generate large datasets and identify differentially expressed genes or metabolites as "key findings" without experimentally validating the functional role of at least the top candidates. The journal's reviewers treat omics data as a discovery tool that generates hypotheses, not as the experimental endpoint. At minimum, functional validation for two to three of the most prominent candidates (via overexpression, knockdown, or genetic association) is expected.

A Frontiers in Plant Science readiness check identifies whether the mechanistic depth and dataset completeness meet the journal's current editorial expectations before reviewers flag the same gaps.

Frontiers in Plant Science uses a collaborative peer review model. The editorial bar is focused on scientific soundness rather than perceived "impact" or novelty. That means:

• the methodology needs to be sound and reproducible
• the conclusions need to be supported by the data
• the paper needs to be within the broad scope of plant science
• the presentation needs to be clear and well-organized

This is a lower bar than specialty plant journals that also screen for novelty and significance. For authors, that means a wider range of plant science work can find a home here.

Submit if:

• the paper is plant biology or plant science and the methodology is sound
• open access and fast review turnaround matter more than selectivity signaling
• the work does not reach the novelty bar for New Phytologist, Plant Cell, or Plant Journal
• the audience is the broad plant science community rather than a narrow specialty

Think twice if:

• New Phytologist, Plant Journal, or Plant Physiology is a realistic target (stronger selectivity signal)
• the Frontiers APC ($2,950 for standard article) is a constraint
• institutional or funding committee perceptions of Frontiers journals matter for your evaluation
• the result has enough novelty to warrant trying a more selective venue first

The impact factor for Frontiers in Plant Science measures average citations per paper over 2 years. It does not measure the quality of any individual paper, the prestige within a specific subfield, or whether the journal is the right fit for your work. A high IF does not guarantee your paper will be cited, and a lower IF does not mean the journal lacks influence in its specialty.

Impact factors also do not account for field-specific citation patterns. Journals in clinical medicine accumulate citations faster than journals in mathematics or ecology. Comparing IFs across fields is misleading.

Before choosing Frontiers in Plant Science based on IF alone, a Frontiers in Plant Science fit check assesses whether the mechanistic depth and functional validation meet the journal's current editorial bar.