Is Frontiers in Immunology Predatory? A Practical Verdict
Frontiers in Immunology is not predatory. It carries a 5.9 Impact Factor, Q1 ranking, and IUIS backing — but Frontiers' publisher model and Finland's downgrade are worth understanding before you submit.
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Quick answer: No. Frontiers in Immunology is a real, indexed journal with a 5.9 Impact Factor, Q1 ranking in Immunology, PubMed/MEDLINE indexing, and backing from the International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS). The concern is not about the journal itself but about Frontiers Media's publishing model, review structure, and recent institutional downgrades.
Why people ask the question
Frontiers Media was placed on Beall's list in 2015, then pressured the University of Colorado into investigating Beall, contributing to the shutdown of the entire list in 2017. The university investigation was closed with no findings against Beall.
In December 2024, Finland's JUFO system downgraded 78 Frontiers journals to Level 0, including this one. Finland called the downgraded journals "grey area journals" that aim to increase publications with minimal editorial effort. Twenty-two Frontiers journals retained Level 1 status, but Frontiers in Immunology was not among them.
In July 2025, Frontiers retracted 122 articles across five journals after uncovering a peer review manipulation network that linked over 4,000 articles across eight publishers. Earlier, in September 2023, Frontiers retracted approximately 40 papers tied to authorship-for-sale schemes. France's Inria institute also labeled Frontiers a "grey-zone publisher" in 2023.
These publisher-level events create guilt by association for every journal in the portfolio. The question is almost never about whether Frontiers in Immunology fabricates peer review. It is about whether the Frontiers model — interactive review, published reviewer names, author-suggested editors, high volume — produces the rigor you expect from a Q1 venue.
What is actually true about Frontiers in Immunology
The journal was founded in 2010. Its field chief editor, Luigi Daniele Notarangelo, directs the Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology at NIH's NIAID. It is the official journal of the IUIS. The editorial board includes over 2,500 editors across specialty sections covering cancer immunity, vaccines, B cell biology, systems immunology, inflammation, and more.
Its Impact Factor of 5.9 ranks it Q1 in Immunology (32/183 on JCR). Its 5-year IF is 6.8, CiteScore is 9.8, SJR is 1.941, and h-index is 259. It is indexed in SCIE, Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE, and DOAJ. The APC is CHF 3,150 (approximately USD 3,400). Annual output is approximately 5,500 articles, down from a peak of 8,200 in 2022. The estimated acceptance rate is around 60%.
An IF of 5.9 places it in the upper third of immunology venues — below Journal of Experimental Medicine (IF 10.6) and Immunity (IF 26.3) but above Clinical Immunology (IF 4.4) and Immunology (IF 4.9). The IF has declined from a peak of 8.8 in 2021, mirroring post-COVID citation normalization but steeper than at most competing immunology journals.
These are not the characteristics of a predatory journal. A predatory journal does not maintain MEDLINE indexing through the NLM's rigorous review process, accumulate an h-index of 259, or serve as the official outlet of a major immunological society.
Where the real risk sits
The risk is not fake publishing. The risk is the review model's structural incentives.
Frontiers uses interactive review where reviewer names are published on accepted papers. Critics argue this discourages rejection — your name only appears on papers you approved. The system has no traditional "major revision" pathway, channeling manuscripts toward acceptance or rejection through dialogue rather than formal revision rounds. Authors can suggest preferred associate editors, raising concerns about editor selection bias. The 7-day initial review deadline is tight for immunology research involving complex experimental validation.
For special issues specifically, quality depends heavily on the guest editor. Regular submissions go through the journal's main editorial pipeline, which is generally stronger. The 2025 retraction of 122 articles showed that the system can be exploited by organized fraud, though the network spanned eight publishers and was not Frontiers-specific.
The IUIS affiliation gives this journal a credibility backstop that most open-access journals lack, but it does not exempt it from the broader Frontiers model concerns.
The better question than "is Frontiers in Immunology predatory?"
The better question is: does this journal serve my paper and my career?
If you need fast open-access publication with PubMed visibility and the IF/Q1 ranking fits your targets, Frontiers in Immunology is a legitimate venue with real institutional backing. If your hiring committee views Frontiers skeptically, if your institution uses Finland's JUFO system, or if your paper could realistically target Journal of Experimental Medicine (IF 10.6), Immunity (IF 26.3), or the Journal of Immunology (IF 3.6, AAI society journal), those factors should weigh in your decision.
The journal is strongest for solid immunology research that benefits from fast open-access publication with PubMed/MEDLINE discoverability. It is weakest for early-career researchers at institutions where Frontiers carries reputational risk.
How to navigate Frontiers in Immunology
If you decide to submit, a few practical considerations apply. Submit to the specialty section that best matches your work — the journal has many sections, and the section's editors determine your reviewer pool. Expect the interactive review phase, where you will engage in direct discussion with reviewers after initial assessment. If you are invited to a special issue, vet the guest editor's credentials and check whether they have published in their own issues.
Note that reviewer names will be published on your accepted paper. This can work in your favor — having a recognized expert's name attached signals quality. But it also means reviewers may be less likely to push back strongly, which shifts the quality assurance burden partly onto you and the handling editor.
Practical verdict
Frontiers in Immunology is not predatory. It is a Q1 journal with strong metrics, an NIH-affiliated editor, and IUIS backing. The concerns about Frontiers Media — Beall's list history, Finland's downgrade, the 2025 retraction wave, the interactive review model — are about the publisher's structure, not this journal's legitimacy. Understand the model before you submit, evaluate regular versus special issue tracks carefully, and know your institutional context.
For a deeper look at Frontiers as a publisher, see our full Frontiers predatory assessment. To check whether your manuscript fits this journal's expectations, try a free manuscript review.
Sources
Reference library
Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide
This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: how selective journals are, how long review takes, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Dataset / benchmark
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates
A field-organized acceptance-rate guide that works as a neutral benchmark when authors are deciding how selective to target.
Reference table
Journal Submission Specs
A high-utility submission table covering word limits, figure caps, reference limits, and formatting expectations.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.