Is Frontiers in Microbiology a Good Journal? OA Visibility vs Selectivity

Is the high acceptance rate a red flag?

Not inherently. Frontiers uses a soundness-based model, similar in philosophy to PLOS ONE. The acceptance rate reflects that editorial model, not a lack of peer review. But it does mean the journal name won't signal selectivity to readers or hiring committees. If that matters for your career context, factor it into your decision.

Should I worry about Frontiers' reputation?

The reputation is mixed. Most working scientists recognize Frontiers as legitimate but high-volume. At research-intensive institutions, some committees discount Frontiers publications compared to society journals. In applied microbiology, clinical settings, and international contexts, Frontiers papers are generally well-received.

How do I pick the right section?

Check the editorial board for each candidate section. Look at recent papers published in that section. If the topic editor is active, well-known, and the section publishes work at a level you respect, it's a good sign. If the section looks inactive or the recent papers are weak, consider a different section or a different journal.

Is the APC worth it compared to free-to-publish journals?

That depends on whether OA visibility matters for your field. In microbiology subfields where OA papers get significantly more downloads and citations (food safety, antimicrobial resistance, environmental microbiology), the APC may pay for itself. For basic microbiology read primarily by specialists who have institutional access to subscription journals, the value proposition is weaker.

Before submitting, a Frontiers in Microbiology section and tier check can help you assess whether this is the right venue or whether a more selective microbiology journal is realistic.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Frontiers in Microbiology, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections among the papers we analyze.

Section misplacement leading to inconsistent review quality. Frontiers in Microbiology operates with dozens of separate topic sections, each with its own editorial board and topic editors. The journal's author guidelines require authors to select the appropriate section at submission. We see manuscripts placed in sections where the editorial board is sparse or inactive, leading to extended review delays and inconsistent feedback. SciRev author reports show significant variation in review quality and turnaround time across sections. Checking the activity level and editorial composition of the target section before submission is the single most impactful pre-submission step at this journal.

Methodology-only papers without clear biological or applied significance. Frontiers in Microbiology's scope states that papers should contribute "to the understanding of microbiology as a discipline." We observe manuscripts that describe a new sequencing protocol, a new culture method, or a new bioinformatics pipeline without demonstrating its application to a meaningful microbiology question. The collaborative peer review model at Frontiers means that reviewers are assigned based on topic expertise and are often working microbiologists who identify when a method paper lacks biological context. These are not rejected as technical failures but as scope mismatches.

Overclaimed conclusions relative to the study design's resolution. Frontiers in Microbiology reviews for technical soundness, but reviewers still flag conclusions that exceed what the data can support. We find manuscripts where a cross-sectional microbiome study or a single-condition culture experiment draws mechanistic or causal conclusions that the design cannot establish. The collaborative review model, which publishes reviewer names, creates accountability: named reviewers with field expertise are more willing to specifically flag overclaimed conclusions than anonymous reviewers at traditional journals.

SciRev author-reported data on Frontiers in Microbiology shows variable first-decision timelines, typically 4-8 weeks, depending on section activity. A Frontiers in Microbiology section fit and conclusions check can assess whether your section choice, conclusions, and scope are properly calibrated before submission.