Is Frontiers in Plant Science Predatory? A Practical Verdict

The journal was founded in 2010. Its field chief editor is Chun-Ming Liu, Professor of Seed Biology at Peking University and the Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The editorial board includes over 100 specialty section editors across areas from abiotic stress to proteomics to biotechnology to symbiotic interactions.

Its Impact Factor of 4.8 places it Q1 in Plant Sciences on JCR. Its current Frontiers facts page lists an 8.8 CiteScore and indexing in SCIE, Scopus, DOAJ, PubMed, PubMed Central, COPE, CLOCKSS, Crossref, Dimensions, and other databases. DOAJ lists the journal as open access since 2010, with ISSN 1664-462X, CC BY licensing, and a March 2026 metadata update. The APC is CHF 3,150. Annual output is approximately 3,300 articles.

These metrics are solidly mid-to-upper tier in plant science - below The Plant Cell (IF ~11), New Phytologist (IF ~9), and Plant Physiology (IF ~7), but above most other outlets including Plant Science (Elsevier, IF ~4.1), Planta (IF ~3.6), and Journal of Plant Physiology (IF ~3.5). The journal covers the full breadth of plant biology, from molecular genetics to crop science to ecology, making it one of the largest plant science journals in the world by article count.

These are not the characteristics of a predatory journal. A predatory journal does not maintain SCIE indexing, sustain a CiteScore of 8.0, or have Clarivate issue it an Impact Factor for over a decade.

The risk is not that the journal is fake. The risk is consistency at scale.

Frontiers' interactive review model publishes reviewer names on accepted papers, which critics argue creates social pressure against rejection. The 7-day review deadline is tight for complex plant biology experiments involving growth trials, phenotyping, or multi-season field data. The system channels manuscripts toward acceptance or rejection without a traditional major-revision pathway, and authors can suggest preferred associate editors.

Finland specifically downgraded this journal to Level 0. The JUFO statement called these "grey area journals" that minimize editorial effort. For Finnish researchers, publication here now carries minimal funding credit. For researchers elsewhere, it signals that some evaluation systems view the Frontiers model skeptically. If other national systems follow Finland's lead, the reputational cost could increase.

Special issues at Frontiers draw the most variable quality. Regular submissions go through the journal's main editorial pipeline, which provides more consistent oversight. The 2025 retraction of 122 articles across Frontiers showed the system can be exploited, though that manipulation network spanned eight publishers.

In our pre-submission review work with plant-science manuscripts considering Frontiers in Plant Science, three risk patterns show up repeatedly.

The paper is legitimate but too descriptive for the section. We see manuscripts with credible phenotyping, stress-response, or crop-trait data that still do not identify the biological mechanism, applied consequence, or section-specific contribution clearly enough. Frontiers' broad section map can make authors think any plant paper fits, but the associate editor still needs to see why the paper belongs in that section.

The team is using Frontiers to solve a timing problem instead of a fit problem. This is the wrong reason to choose the journal. If the manuscript is underbuilt for Plant Physiology or New Phytologist because it lacks mechanism, validation, or biological significance, moving to Frontiers may get a faster decision but can leave the same weakness visible to future readers and committees.

The Research Topic invitation is treated as quality validation. A Research Topic can be legitimate, but the invitation itself is not proof that the article will carry a strong reputation signal. We advise authors to check the guest editor, accepted articles, article type, and whether the issue is genuinely central to their subfield before treating the invitation as endorsement.

The better question is whether this journal is the right venue for your paper. If your work has the novelty for New Phytologist or The Plant Cell, publishing here leaves impact on the table. If you need fast open-access publication with PubMed visibility and the IF fits your career stage, this is a legitimate option. But understand that a Frontiers in Plant Science paper signals something different on a CV than a New Phytologist paper, even though both are Q1. Hiring committees in competitive plant science departments know this distinction.

If you are submitting to a special issue rather than the regular track, be aware that special issues at high-volume publishers draw more scrutiny from evaluation panels. If you are early-career at a research university, a few well-placed papers in society journals may serve you better than more papers in Frontiers.

If you decide to submit, choose the specialty section that best matches your work - the journal covers everything from molecular genetics to crop improvement to ecology, and section editors determine your reviewer pool. Expect the interactive review phase with published reviewer names. If submitting to a special issue, vet the guest editor and check whether they have published in their own issues.

For researchers evaluating papers from this journal, note the publication track. Regular issue papers went through the journal's main editorial pipeline. Special issue papers were managed by guest editors of varying quality. A paper's citation performance is often a better quality signal than the journal name alone at this volume.

Frontiers in Plant Science is not predatory. It is a real Q1 journal with PubMed indexing, SCIE coverage, a CAS-affiliated editor, and an h-index of 246. The concerns - Beall's list history, Finland's downgrade, the interactive review model, the volume - are about publisher incentives, not journal legitimacy. Know what you are getting, and do not confuse "legitimate" with "prestigious."

For the full picture on Frontiers as a publisher, see our Frontiers predatory assessment. To check whether your manuscript fits this journal, try a manuscript readiness check.

Publish if:

• The journal is indexed in your field's key databases
• Peers in your specific area respect publications here
• The editorial process includes genuine peer review
• Your institution's evaluation system counts this journal

Think twice if:

• Senior colleagues in your field are skeptical of this journal
• You need strong prestige signals for career advancement
• A more selective or society-backed venue would accept the same paper
• The journal's reputation could affect how your work is received