Is Frontiers in Immunology Predatory? A Practical Verdict

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 manuscript readiness check.

• Is Frontiers Predatory? A Practical Publisher Verdict

Publish if:

• The journal is indexed in Web of Science and Scopus for your field
• The specific journal (not just the publisher) is respected by your peers
• You are submitting to a regular issue, not a loosely curated special issue
• Your institution's evaluation system counts publications in this journal

Think twice if:

• Senior colleagues in your field view the publisher skeptically
• You are on the job market and need strong prestige signals
• The APC is not covered by your funder or institution
• A society journal or more selective venue would accept the same paper
• Your country's research evaluation system has flagged this publisher