Skip to main content

Navigation group

Main content

Specialty chief editor


The nucleus is non-randomly organized and disrupting this organization can lead to disease; however, the exact functions that follow from nuclear organization and how it changes in development or in response to stimuli remain hotly debated. The Nuclear Organization and Dynamics section aims to publish innovative research leading to significant insights across the wide scope of this area with particular focus on the functional consequences for a particular organization or how it changes at 3 levels of genome structure: local organization of chromatin, nuclear bodies, and the overall 3D structural organization of the nucleus. In addition, as the nuclear envelope integrates many signals for genome organization both mechanically and through regulation of transport and signal transduction pathways, this Section will also consider research on this structure and how it connects not just to the genome but also to the rest of the cell.

Local chromatin organization

The genome is organized by different folding and linear organization of DNA and chromatin. Most of this research area focuses on epigenetic regulation of genome compaction or accessibility and such studies are a more appropriate fit for the section Epigenomics and Epigenetics. However, studies relating local genome folding to 3D nuclear structure are welcome: for example how nuclear envelope tethering alters tension/folding of DNA, or what drives specific enhancer-gene regulatory pairings within the larger genome.

Nuclear bodies/ regions

At its most fundamental level, nuclear functions are segregated into distinct nuclear bodies/ regions such as the nucleolus, Cajal bodies, coiled bodies, PML/ND10 bodies, speckles, NPCs, and nuclear lamina. These bodies/regions generally segregate by both chemical properties and affinities of their components because, unlike the cytoplasm where functions can be segregated by membrane-bound compartments, in the nucleus various functions need access to engage with particular chromosome regions in a dynamic fashion. This new section will highlight insights into how these bodies are generated and maintained, how they move within the nucleus in support of their function, and how they change under different conditions.

Global 3D genome organization

Gene-enhancer and other regulatory interactions can occur within a local region of the same chromosome or from interactions between different chromosomes. Tissue-specific patterns of global genome organization can influence whether a particular regulatory interaction occurs. Additionally, rapid changes in this kind of genome organization in response to stimuli have been observed. This section will accept both focused studies detailing the mechanisms behind achieving/ maintaining/ changing a particular locus positioning within the nucleus and global studies such as using Hi-C or DamID to map changes that occur and identify proteins involved in larger-scale genome organization. Studies on what controls the spatial positioning in the nucleus of chromosome regions (e.g. telomeres in the Rabl configuration) and nuclear bodies will also be welcome as will studies identifying the myriad other functions for genome organization yet to be discovered.

The nuclear envelope

The nuclear envelope is the single distinguishing feature of all eukaryotes and the most stable nuclear structure, yet its composition changes dramatically between cell types and in higher eukaryotes it completely disassembles and reassembles at each mitosis. In addition to its connections to the genome and contributions to gene regulation covered in the two above subsections, the nuclear envelope also connects to the cytoskeleton. These connections enable mechanosignal transduction to the genome, nuclear migration within myofibers to neuromuscular junctions, nuclear orientation in polarized/ secreting cells, cell migration, and many other functions. Notably, while it is clear that these connections contribute to the overall mechanical stability of the cell, it remains unclear to what extent the cytoskeleton versus the chromatin in the nucleus contribute to buffering mechanical forces on the cell.

Please consider the quality and content requirements for experimental studies as listed below:

1) Descriptive studies that do not lead to new insights will not be considered. For example, simply performing Hi-C in a new cell type would not be of interest while investigating how Hi-C profiles change during development or in response to relevant environmental stimuli would be of interest.

2) Studies describing new phenomena must be carefully controlled to ensure they are not tissue culture artefacts unique to cancer cell lines.

Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology is member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.


  • Short name

    Front. Cell Dev. Biol.

  • Abbreviation


  • Electronic ISSN


  • Indexed in

    PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Scopus, Web of Science Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Google Scholar, DOAJ, CrossRef, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, CLOCKSS, OpenAIRE


    All published articles receive a PMCID

  • Impact

    5.5 Impact Factor

    6.3 CiteScore


Nuclear Organization and Dynamics welcomes submissions of the following article types: Brief Research Report, Correction, Data Report, Editorial, General Commentary, Hypothesis & Theory, Methods, Mini Review, Opinion, Original Research, Perspective, Review, Technology and Code.

All manuscripts must be submitted directly to the section Nuclear Organization and Dynamics, where they are peer-reviewed by the Associate and Review Editors of the specialty section.

Open access statement

Open access logo

Frontiers' philosophy is that all research is for the benefit of humankind. Research is the product of an investment by society and therefore its fruits should be returned to all people without borders or discrimination, serving society universally and in a transparent fashion.

That is why Frontiers provides online free and open access to all of its research publications. For more information on open access click here.

Open access funder and institutional mandates

Frontiers is fully compliant with open access mandates, by publishing its articles under the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC-BY). Funder mandates such as those by the Wellcome Trust (UK), National Institutes of Health (USA) and the Australian Research Council (Australia) are fully compatible with publishing in Frontiers. Authors retain copyright of their work and can deposit their publication in any repository. The work can be freely shared and adapted provided that appropriate credit is given and any changes specified.


Each Frontiers article strives for the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors, editors and reviewers, who include many of the world's best scientists and scholars. Frontiers is well aware of the potential impact of published research both on future research and on society and, hence, does not support superficial review, light review or no-review publishing models.

Frontiers uses the single anonymized peer review model, where the reviewer identity is not made visible to the author, while the author identity is visible to the reviewer, and reviewer and the authors’ identities are visible to the decision-making editor. Reviewers interact with the handling editor and the authors. Editor and reviewer names and affiliations are published on all Frontiers articles.

Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public - and shape society. Therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews, established in the high standards of the Frontiers Review System. Furthermore, only the top certified research, evaluated objectively through quantitative online article level metrics, is disseminated to increasingly wider communities as it gradually climbs the tiers of the Frontiers Tiering System from specialized expert readership towards public understanding.

Frontiers has a number of procedures in place to support and ensure the quality of the research articles that are published:

  • 2023

    • Editorial Board Quality

      • Only leading experts and established members of the research community are appointed to the Frontiers Editorial Boards. Chief Editors, Associate Editors and Review Editors are all listed with their names and affiliations on the Journal pages and are encouraged to publicly list their publication credentials.

    • Associate Editor Assignment Quality

      • Associate Editors oversee the peer-review and take the final acceptance decision on manuscripts. Editorial decision power is distributed in Frontiers, because we believe that many experts within a community should be able to shape the direction of science for the benefit of society.

      • Submitting authors can choose a preferred Associate Editor to handle their manuscript, because they can judge well who would be an appropriate expert in editing their manuscript. There is no guarantee for this preference of choice, Associate Editors can decline invitations any time, and the handling Associate Editor can also be over-ridden by the Chief Editor before she/he is invited to edit the article or at any other stage.

      • Associate Editors are mandated to only accept to edit a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest (as stated here and in their review invitation and assignment emails).

      • Should it become clear that the Associate Editor has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer-review timely and adequately, a new Associate Editor can be assigned to the manuscript by the Chief Editor, who has full control to intervene in the peer-review process at any time.

      • The Associate Editor initially checks that the article meets basic quality standards and has no obvious objective errors.

    • Reviewer Assignment Quality

      • The Associate Editor can then personally choose and invite the most appropriate reviewers to handle the peer-review of the manuscript, including Review Editors from the board or external reviewers.

      • The Associate Editor is aided in this by the Frontiers Collaborative Review Forum software and interface, which suggests the most relevant Review Editors based on a match between their expertise and the topic of the manuscript. Associate Editors can however choose any reviewer they deem adequate.

      • After a certain time frame and if no reviewers have in the meantime been assigned to the manuscript, the Frontiers platform and algorithmic safety-net steps in and invites the most appropriate Review Editors based on constantly updated and improved algorithms that match reviewer expertise with the submitted manuscript.

      • Review Editors and reviewers are mandated to only accept to review a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest (as stated here and in their review invitation and assignment emails).

      • Frontiers algorithms are constantly fine-tuned to better match Review Editors with manuscripts, and additional checks are being coded into the platform, for example regarding conflicts of interest.

      • Should it become clear that a particular reviewer has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer-review timely and adequately, he or she shall be replaced with an alternative reviewer by the Associate Editor or the Chief Editor, who will be alerted and has full control to intervene into the peer-review at any time.

    • Independent Review Stage Quality

      • In the Independent Review Stage the assigned reviewers perform an in-depth review of the article independently of each other to safeguard complete freedom of opinion.

      • The reviewers are aided by an online standardized review questionnaire – adopted to article types – with the goal to facilitate rigorous evaluation according to objective criteria and the Frontiers Review Guidelines.

    • Interactive Review Stage Quality

      • The Associate Editor assesses the reviews and activates the “Interactive Review” – informing the authors of the extent of revisions that are required to address the reviewers’ comments, and starting the Interactive Discussion Forum where authors and also the reviewers get full access to all review reports.

      • Manuscript and review quality at this stage are enhanced by allowing authors and reviewers to discuss directly with each other in real-time until they reach consensus and a final version of the manuscript is endorsed by the reviewers.

      • Reviewer identity is protected at this stage to safeguard complete freedom of opinion.

      • Reviewers can recommend rejection at this stage if their requests to correct objective errors are not being met by the authors or if they deem the article overall of insufficient quality.

      • Should a dispute arise, authors or reviewers can trigger an arbitration and will alert the Associate Editor, who can assign more reviewers and/or bring the dispute to the attention of the Chief Editor. The Associate Editor can also weigh in on the discussion and is asked to mediate the process to ensure a constructive revision stage.

    • Decision Stage Quality

      • The decision to accept an article needs to be unanimous amongst all reviewers and the handling Associate Editor.

      • The names of the Associate Editor and reviewers are disclosed on published articles to encourage in depth and rigorous reviews, acknowledge work well done on the article and to bring transparency and accountability into peer-review.

      • Associate Editors can recommend the rejection of an article to the Chief Editor, who needs to check that the authors’ rights have been upheld during the peer-review process, and who can then ultimately reject the article if it is of insufficient quality, has objective errors or if the authors were unreasonably unwilling to address the points raised during the review.

      • Chief Editors can at any stage of the peer-review step in to comment on the review process, change assigned editors, assign themselves as a reviewer and even as the handling editor for the manuscript, and therefore have full authority and all the mechanisms to act independently in their online editorial office to ensure quality.

    • Safeguards against Financial Conflicts of Interest

      • Only leading researchers acting as Associate Editors, who are not part of Frontiers staff, can make acceptance decisions based on reviews performed by external experts acting as Review Editors or reviewers. None have a financial incentive to accept articles, i.e. they are not paid for their role to act as Associate or Review Editors, and any award scheme is not linked to acceptances of manuscripts.

      • Chief Editors receive an honorarium if their specialty section or field reaches certain submission levels. However, this honorarium is based on the total number of submitted articles during a calendar year, and not the number of accepted articles. Therefore they also have no financial incentive to accept manuscripts.

    • Post-Publication Stage Quality

      • The Frontiers platform enables post-publication commenting and discussions on papers and hence the possibility to critically evaluate articles even after the peer-review process.

      • Frontiers has a community retraction protocol in place to retract papers where serious concerns have been raised and validated by the community that warrant retraction, including ethical concerns, honest errors or scientific misconduct.