Rejected from Frontiers in Immunology? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

When you submit to Frontiers in Immunology, the paper goes through an initial editorial check, then to at least two reviewers. But instead of traditional back-and-forth revision letters, Frontiers uses an "interactive review" phase where you discuss the manuscript directly with reviewers in an online forum. The handling editor monitors this discussion and makes the final call.

This sounds collaborative, and it can be. But it also means that disagreements between you and the reviewers play out in real time, and the editor can see exactly how you respond to criticism. Being defensive during interactive review is a common reason for rejection even when the underlying science is fixable.

• "The reviewers couldn't reach consensus on the manuscript's suitability." In Frontiers' system, the editor needs both reviewers to be broadly satisfied after the interactive phase. If one reviewer remains opposed and you weren't able to address their concerns, the editor will typically reject rather than override the dissenting reviewer.

• "The manuscript doesn't meet the methodological standards required." Frontiers in Immunology has tightened quality controls in response to criticism about publishing too many low-quality papers. Flow cytometry without proper gating strategies, ELISA results without standard curves, or animal experiments without appropriate controls will get flagged more aggressively now than they would have two or three years ago.

• "The topic is better suited to a more specialized Frontiers journal." Frontiers operates dozens of journals, and the editors sometimes decide that your paper fits better in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, Frontiers in Allergy, or another title. This isn't a quality judgment. It's a scope decision.

• "Insufficient novelty for the journal." Despite its large publication volume, Frontiers in Immunology still expects some degree of new biological insight. Purely descriptive studies, case reports without generalizable findings, or confirmatory research may not clear this bar.

• "Concerns about data integrity or presentation." Frontiers runs automated checks on images and data, and their quality team has become more aggressive about flagging potential problems. If your Western blots show splicing artifacts, your flow cytometry plots look inconsistent, or your statistical claims don't match the raw data, the paper will be held for investigation.

Before choosing your next journal, a Frontiers in Immunology manuscript fit check can tell you whether the issue was scope or something more fundamental to address first.

1. Journal of Immunology

The Journal of Immunology (JI) is the flagship publication of the American Association of Immunologists, and it's been the standard venue for immunology research for over a century. If your paper was rejected from Frontiers in Immunology for quality or novelty reasons but the underlying science is sound, JI is a step up in prestige. The journal publishes roughly 30% of submissions, has no APC (subscription model), and the review process is typically faster than Frontiers.

JI covers all areas of immunology: innate immunity, adaptive immunity, mucosal immunology, tumor immunology, and immunogenetics. The editorial board expects solid experimental work with clear controls and appropriate statistical analysis. Don't submit if the Frontiers reviewers found genuine methodological problems that you haven't fixed.

Best for: Core immunology research, T cell biology, B cell biology, innate immunity, cytokine biology.

2. Clinical and Experimental Immunology

Published by the British Society for Immunology (through Oxford University Press), this journal bridges basic and clinical immunology. It's a good fit for papers that have a clinical angle but aren't purely clinical, and it's particularly strong in autoimmunity, transplant immunology, and primary immunodeficiency research.

If your Frontiers submission was translational immunology work, Clinical and Experimental Immunology provides a focused readership that cares specifically about that translation from bench to bedside. The journal has recently modernized its scope to include systems immunology and computational approaches.

Best for: Translational immunology, autoimmunity, transplant immunology, primary immunodeficiencies.

3. International Journal of Molecular Sciences (IJMS)

IJMS is a large open-access journal that covers molecular biology, biochemistry, and related fields. It's broader than a pure immunology journal, which can be an advantage if your paper sits at the intersection of immunology and another discipline (molecular biology, cancer biology, or metabolism, for example).

The journal's acceptance rate is around 40%, and the review process is generally faster than Frontiers. One caveat: IJMS publishes a very high volume of papers, so discoverability can be an issue. Make sure your title and keywords are optimized so that immunologists can find your paper.

Best for: Molecular immunology, immunometabolism, signal transduction in immune cells, interdisciplinary work.

4. Cells

Cells is published by MDPI (the same publisher as IJMS) and focuses on cell biology research, including immune cell biology. The journal has a strong IF for its category and publishes a wide range of cell biology papers, from stem cells to immunology to cancer cell biology.

If your Frontiers in Immunology paper was focused on immune cell biology specifically (T cell activation, macrophage polarization, dendritic cell maturation, etc.), Cells' scope is a natural fit. The review process is typically fast, with initial decisions in four to six weeks.

Best for: Immune cell biology, cell signaling, immune cell differentiation, cellular mechanisms of immunity.

5. Clinical Immunology

Clinical Immunology is an Elsevier journal that focuses specifically on clinical and translational immunology research. If your paper is about autoimmune disease, immunodeficiency, transplant rejection, or clinical immune monitoring, this journal's scope is precisely targeted to your work.

The journal is more selective than Frontiers in Immunology, with a lower acceptance rate, but the editorial criteria are different. Clinical Immunology cares less about mechanistic novelty and more about clinical relevance and patient impact.

Best for: Autoimmune diseases, clinical immune monitoring, immunodeficiency, transplant immunology, allergen immunotherapy.

6. Immunology

The British Society of Immunology's journal covers basic and applied immunology research. It's a respected mid-tier journal that publishes well-conducted immunology studies with clear biological conclusions. The editorial board values experimental rigor over flashy results, which means that solid, well-controlled studies that might not have been "novel enough" for Frontiers can find a good home here.

Best for: Basic immunology, host-pathogen interactions, vaccine immunology, mucosal immunity.

7. Journal of Leukocyte Biology

For papers focused specifically on leukocyte biology, innate immunity, or inflammation, JLB is a well-targeted alternative. The journal is published by the Society for Leukocyte Biology and covers neutrophil biology, macrophage function, NK cell biology, and inflammatory signaling.

If your Frontiers submission was about innate immune mechanisms, JLB's readership is exactly the audience you want. The journal also publishes strong review articles in its specialty areas.

Best for: Innate immunity, neutrophil biology, macrophage research, inflammation, NK cell function.

Rejected for quality concerns? Fix the problems first. If Frontiers reviewers identified real methodological issues, those issues will follow you to every journal. Address the experimental gaps, improve the statistical analysis, and add missing controls before submitting anywhere else.

Rejected for novelty? Journal of Immunology and Immunology both value solid experimental work without demanding the same level of novelty as top-tier journals. These journals publish well-conducted confirmatory studies and incremental advances that contribute to the field.

Rejected for scope? Look at whether your paper fits better in a Frontiers sister journal (Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, Frontiers in Allergy) or in a discipline-specific journal outside the Frontiers network. BMC Immunology is another option for immunology papers that need a broad but discipline-specific venue.

Clinical immunology paper rejected? Skip the basic immunology journals and go directly to Clinical Immunology, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, or Arthritis and Rheumatology (if autoimmune-focused). These journals evaluate clinical immunology papers with different criteria than basic science journals.

Fix the flow cytometry. If your paper includes flow cytometry data, make sure gating strategies are shown in supplementary figures, FMO controls are included, and the antibody panel is completely documented. This is the single most common data quality issue in immunology papers.

Address the reviewer disagreements. If Frontiers' interactive review showed that one reviewer was consistently critical, read their comments objectively. Were they right? Even if their tone was harsh, their scientific points may be valid. Address those points in your revision regardless of where you submit next.

Tighten the statistics. Immunology papers frequently use inappropriate statistical tests (parametric tests on non-normal data, multiple comparisons without correction, pseudoreplication in animal experiments). If any reviewer flagged a statistical concern, consult a biostatistician before resubmitting.

Improve the narrative. Immunology is a complex field, and papers that jump between topics without a clear thread get rejected more often. Make sure your paper tells one story, and make sure the reader can follow it from introduction through discussion without getting lost.

The interactive review process at Frontiers means you have detailed feedback from two reviewers, which is more information than most rejected authors get. Use it. Before your next submission, run your revised manuscript through a manuscript scope and readiness check to confirm that structural issues, formatting gaps, and scope alignment problems are resolved. Matching the right paper to the right journal is half the battle, and the other half is presenting it cleanly enough that reviewers can focus on the science.

Resubmit to the same tier if:

• Reviewers praised the science but identified fixable issues
• The rejection letter mentioned "consider resubmission after revision"
• You can address every concern within 2-3 months
• No competing paper has appeared since your submission

Move to a different journal if:

• The rejection cited scope mismatch, not quality
• Multiple reviewers questioned novelty or significance
• Your timeline needs a decision within 2-3 months
• A specialist journal's readership would value the work more

Reframe before resubmitting anywhere if:

• Reviewers found fundamental methodology concerns
• The narrative needs restructuring, not just polishing
• New experiments or analyses are needed
• The rejection exposed a gap between claims and evidence

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Frontiers in Immunology, four patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before resubmission.

Scope outside immunology: disease biology presented as immunology. Frontiers in Immunology publishes work where the immune system's function is the central subject of investigation. We see this failure as the most common pattern in Frontiers in Immunology desk rejections we review: papers characterizing clinical outcomes, tumor biology, or microbiome composition in a disease context where immune cells are measured but not the primary focus of the study. In our review of Frontiers in Immunology submissions, we find that editors consistently require that the immunological mechanism, not just the presence of immune cells, be the central contribution.

Methodological reporting gaps in flow cytometry or immune assay data. Frontiers in Immunology requires detailed reporting of gating strategies, antibody clones, and experimental controls for flow cytometry and immune assay data. We see this pattern in Frontiers in Immunology submissions we review with missing gating strategy figures, incomplete antibody validation, or absent positive and negative controls that prevent evaluation of the immunophenotyping data quality. Editors return these for methodological completeness.

Descriptive immunophenotyping without functional interpretation. Papers enumerating immune cell populations in patient samples or disease models without investigating what those populations are doing, how they are regulated, or what their functional significance is consistently fail Frontiers in Immunology's editorial standard. We see this pattern in submissions we review: comprehensive phenotyping datasets where the biological interpretation remains at the level of "more of this cell type was observed."

Review articles or meta-analyses submitted without systematic search documentation. Frontiers in Immunology publishes review articles and meta-analyses but requires PRISMA-compliant systematic search documentation. We see this failure regularly in manuscripts we review: narrative review submissions or literature-based meta-analyses where the search strategy, inclusion criteria, and data extraction methods are either absent or insufficiently documented for the review to be evaluated.

SciRev community data for Frontiers in Immunology confirms desk rejections typically arrive within days, with post-review first decisions within 6-10 weeks, consistent with the Frontiers editorial cadence for specialty immunology submissions.