Is Frontiers in Microbiology Predatory? A Practical Verdict
Frontiers in Microbiology is not predatory. It has a 4.5 Impact Factor, Q1 ranking, and PubMed indexing — but the Frontiers review model and institutional downgrades are worth understanding.
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 Microbiology is a SCIE-indexed, Q1 journal in Microbiology with a 4.5 Impact Factor and PubMed Central indexing. The concerns are about Frontiers Media's publisher model — interactive review, published reviewer names, the Finland downgrade — not about this journal being fake.
Why people ask the question
Frontiers Media was on Beall's list from 2015 until Beall shut down the entire list in 2017, partly under pressure from Frontiers itself. Frontiers demanded the University of Colorado investigate Beall for misconduct; the investigation found nothing against him.
In November 2017, Frontiers retracted four papers — including two from this journal — after discovering that peer reviews had been fabricated by the authors themselves, researchers at CSIR-NIIST in India. This was among the first reported cases of fake peer review at Frontiers. The publisher used the incident to launch new identity verification policies. The event showed that the system could be exploited by dishonest actors — a vulnerability shared by many publishers including Springer Nature, Elsevier, and Wiley.
Finland downgraded 78 Frontiers journals to Level 0 in late 2024. Finland called these "grey area journals" that aim to increase publications with minimal editorial effort. In July 2025, Frontiers retracted 122 articles across five journals after uncovering a peer review manipulation network spanning eight publishers. Frontiers' willingness to retract at that scale is itself notable — predatory publishers do not retract papers because they lack the editorial infrastructure to investigate.
These events drive the "is it predatory?" searches. France's Inria institute labeled Frontiers a "grey-zone publisher" in 2023, highlighting concerns about rapid acceptance in special issues. The question is really about the Frontiers model, not about whether this particular journal fabricates its editorial process.
MDPI's Beall's list history is separate — that involves a different publisher entirely. Frontiers in Microbiology is published by Frontiers Media SA, based in Lausanne, Switzerland, which was established in 2007.
What is actually true about Frontiers in Microbiology
The journal was founded in 2010. Its field chief editor is Paul D. Cotter, who heads Food Biosciences at Teagasc and is a principal investigator with APC Microbiome Ireland. He took over in April 2022 from Martin G. Klotz (Washington State University), who served for 11 years. The journal has 17 specialty sections, each with its own section chief editor and hundreds of associate editors.
Its Impact Factor of 4.5 (up from 4.0 in 2023) ranks it Q1 in Microbiology at the 76.7th percentile. Its 5-year IF is 5.2, CiteScore is 8.2, SJR is 1.172, and h-index is 259. It is indexed in SCIE, Scopus (Q1 in Microbiology and Medical Microbiology), PubMed Central, Embase, and DOAJ. The APC is CHF 3,150 for A-type articles. Total handling time averages about 77 days.
One important distinction: Frontiers in Microbiology is in PubMed Central but is not indexed in MEDLINE. The NLM Catalog explicitly notes this. Articles appear in PubMed searches through the PMC pathway, but the journal has not passed the NLM's separate MEDLINE evaluation. For clinical microbiologists, this matters. For basic science researchers, the difference is less significant.
Annual output peaked at approximately 5,300 articles in 2022 and has since declined to the 3,500-4,000 range. The journal is large by microbiology standards (most specialty journals publish 200-500 papers per year) but smaller than MDPI mega-journals.
Where the real risk sits
The structural concerns are about Frontiers' interactive review model. Published reviewer names may discourage negative assessments — your name only appears on papers you helped accept. The 7-day review deadline is tight for microbiology research involving complex experimental validation. Authors can suggest preferred associate editors, creating potential for selection bias. The system channels manuscripts toward acceptance or rejection without a traditional major-revision pathway.
The estimated ~60% acceptance rate across Frontiers journals is higher than most Q1 venues in microbiology. This combined with an APC model is the combination that makes people uncomfortable. The volume decline since 2022 may reflect tighter standards, post-COVID submission normalization, or institutional downgrades reducing submissions.
For special issues, quality depends on the guest editor. Regular submissions go through the journal's main editorial pipeline, which provides more consistent oversight. The 2025 retraction of 122 articles across five Frontiers journals showed the system can be exploited, though that manipulation ring spanned eight publishers and was not Frontiers-specific.
The better question than "is Frontiers in Microbiology predatory?"
The better question is whether this journal is the right venue for your paper. If you need open-access publication with PubMed discoverability and a Q1 ranking in microbiology, Frontiers in Microbiology delivers that. If you need MEDLINE indexing specifically, this journal does not have it. If you could target mBio (IF 5.1, ASM society journal), Applied and Environmental Microbiology (IF 3.3, ASM), or Microbiome (IF 12.7), those venues carry different reputational signals. If your institution uses Finland's JUFO system, publication here now earns minimal credit.
Consider the section you submit to as well — the journal has 17 specialty sections, and the editors who handle your paper depend on which section you choose. Quality can vary by section.
How to navigate Frontiers in Microbiology
If you decide to submit, submit to the specialty section that best matches your work — the journal has 17 sections, and the section's editors determine your reviewer pool. Expect the interactive review phase with a 7-day initial assessment window, followed by direct discussion with reviewers. If submitting to a special issue, vet the guest editor's expertise and publication record.
For researchers reading or citing papers from this journal, distinguish Frontiers in Microbiology from Frontiers as a publisher. The journal's individual metrics (IF 4.5, Q1, h-index 259) are strong. Publisher-level controversies do not automatically apply to every paper in the journal. Check whether the paper came from a regular issue or special issue, and note whether open review reports are available.
Practical verdict
Frontiers in Microbiology is not predatory. It has real indexing, real peer review with a distinctive interactive model, a qualified editorial team, and strong citation metrics. The concerns — the interactive review model, the MEDLINE gap, Finland's downgrade, the 2017 fake review cases — are worth weighing but do not make the journal predatory. Know your institutional context, distinguish regular from special issue submissions, and evaluate whether the MEDLINE gap matters for your field.
For the full picture on Frontiers as a publisher, see our Frontiers predatory assessment. To evaluate whether your manuscript fits this journal, 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.