Is Frontiers in Microbiology Predatory? A Practical Verdict

The journal was founded in 2010. Verify the current Field Chief Editor on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name. The journal has 17 specialty sections, each with its own section chief editor and hundreds of associate editors.

Its JIF 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 8.5, 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.

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.

Across Manusights submission reviews for microbiology manuscripts considering Frontiers in Microbiology, the recurring issue is not whether the journal is legitimate (it is) but whether the manuscript is shaped for the interactive review model and the institutional context. Each pattern below names a manuscript component you can check before submission.

Scope framed for a specialist niche rather than the chosen specialty section: Frontiers in Microbiology has 17 specialty sections, and the section you choose determines your reviewer pool. We see abstracts and cover letters that do not signal which section the paper belongs in, so the manuscript lands with editors whose expertise is a poor match. We check that the title, abstract, and cover letter point clearly at one section.

Methods written for a 7-day interactive review window without the validation up front: the Frontiers model runs a tight initial assessment and then direct reviewer discussion, so a methods section that defers key experimental validation or statistics to "available on request" stalls in the interactive phase. We surface the sample size, controls, and statistics the reviewers will ask for so they are in the manuscript, not the rebuttal.

Claims and data-availability statements that the published review record will expose: because reviewer names and the full review history are published, an overclaimed conclusion or a vague data-availability statement is permanently visible. We calibrate the abstract and discussion to the data and check that the references and the data-availability statement actually match the figures before submission.

Institutional-context mismatch the author has not weighed: for a researcher whose evaluation system or committee discounts this venue relative to a society journal, the methods and results may be sound while the venue choice quietly undercuts the career goal the paper was meant to serve. We name that tradeoff explicitly, against the specific milestone and committee in play, so the venue decision is a deliberate one rather than an accidental byproduct of a fast, open-access route.

The legitimacy answer (not predatory) does not settle the career question. In some departments, hiring and promotion committees, and national evaluation systems, a Frontiers in Microbiology paper now carries less institutional weight than the same work in a society journal.

Finland's JUFO system downgraded the journal to Level 0 in late 2024 but reversed that decision after a formal re-evaluation - it is rated Level 1 again. France's Inria labeled Frontiers a "grey-zone publisher," and some senior microbiology faculty remain skeptical of the high-acceptance, APC-funded model.

This perception is field-dependent and country-dependent: in many applied and environmental microbiology communities the journal is well regarded, while in some clinical or institutional settings a tenure or fellowship reviewer may discount it.

If you are building a tenure case, a fellowship application, or a faculty-job file where the committee is conservative about open-access mega-journals, weigh that institutional perception alongside the journal's genuine indexing and metrics, and talk to people who have served on your target committees.

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 (JIF 4.7, ASM society journal), Applied and Environmental Microbiology (JIF 4.2, ASM), or Microbiome JIF 14.9, those venues carry different reputational signals.

If your institution uses Finland's JUFO system, note that the journal's 2024 downgrade was reversed on re-evaluation: it is rated Level 1 again and earns standard Level 1 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.

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 (JIF 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.

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 since-reversed 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 manuscript readiness check.

• The journal is indexed in your field's key databases (SCIE, Scopus, PubMed Central all apply here)

• Peers in your specific area respect publications here

• The editorial process includes genuine peer review, and you are comfortable with the published reviewer names and review history

• Your institution's evaluation system counts this journal

This verdict separates three kinds of evidence. Official facts (JIF, indexing, APC, the MEDLINE gap, the editorial team) come from JCR 2024, the NLM Catalog, DOAJ, and the Frontiers journal page.

Public reputation signals (the Finland JUFO downgrade and its subsequent reversal, the Inria "grey-zone" label, the 2017 and 2025 retractions, the interactive-review concerns) are documented public events, reported here as context rather than as a predatory finding. The JUFO Level 1 status was verified against the live JUFO registry in June 2026.

The fit guidance and the submission patterns come from Manusights pre-submission review work on microbiology manuscripts and are first-party observations, not private editorial access. Where those disagree, treat the official facts as settled, the reputation signals as directional, and verify the current APC and indexing against the live Frontiers and NLM pages before you submit.