Wikipedia

PLOS One

PLOS One(stylizedPLOS ONE,and formerlyPLoS ONE) is apeer-reviewedopen accessmega journalpublished by thePublic Library of Science(PLOS) since 2006. The journal coversprimary researchfrom any discipline withinscienceandmedicine.The Public Library of Science began in 2000 with an online petition initiative by Nobel Prize winnerHarold Varmus,formerly director of theNational Institutes of Healthand at that time director ofMemorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center;Patrick O. Brown,a biochemist at Stanford University; andMichael Eisen,acomputational biologistat theUniversity of California, Berkeley,and theLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

PLOS ONE
DisciplineMultidisciplinary
LanguageEnglish
EditedbyEmily Chenette
Publication details
History2006;18 years ago(2006)
Publisher
FrequencyUpon acceptance
Yes
LicenseCreative Commons Attribution License4.0 International
2.9 (2023)
Standard abbreviations
ISO 4PLOS ONE
Inde xing
ISSN1932-6203
LCCN2006214532
OCLCno.228234657
Links

Submissions are subject to anarticle processing charge,and according to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. In January 2010, the journal was included in theJournal Citation Reportsand received its firstimpact factorof 4.4. Its 2023 impact factor is 2.9.PLOS Onepapers are published underCreative Commons licenses.

History

edit

Development

edit

TheGordon and Betty Moore Foundationawarded PLOS a $9 million grant in December 2002 and $1 million grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new free-access biomedical journals.[1][2]Later,PLOS Onewas launched in December 2006 as abeta versionnamedPLOS One.It launched with commenting and note-making functionality, and added the ability to rate articles in July 2007. In September 2007, the ability to leave "trackbacks"on articles was added.[3]In August 2008, the journal moved from a weekly to a daily publication schedule, publishing articles as soon as they became ready.[4]PLOS Onecame out of "beta" in October 2008.

In September 2009, as part of itsarticle-level metricsprogram,PLOS Onemade its full online usage data, includingHTMLpage viewsandPDForXMLdownload statistics, publicly available for every published article. In mid-2012, as part of arebrandingof PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name toPLOS One.[5]

Output and turnaround

edit
Year Papers Published
2007 1,200[6]
2008 2,800[6]
2009 4,406[7]
2010 6,749[7]
2011 13,798[8]
2012 23,468[9]
2013 31,500[10]
2014 30,040[11]
2015 28,107[12]
2016 22,054[13]
2017 21,185[14]
2018 18,859[14]
2019 16,318[14]

The number of papers published byPLOS Onegrew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat. M By 2010, it was estimated to have become the largest journal in the world,[7]and in 2011, 1 in 60 articles indexed by PubMed were published byPLOS One.[15]By September 2017,PLOS Oneconfirmed they had published over 200,000 articles.[16]By November 2017, the journalScientific ReportsovertookPLOS Onein terms of output.[17][18]

AtPLOS One,the median review time has grown from 37 days to 125 days over the first ten years of operation, according to Himmelstein's analysis, done forNature.The median between acceptance and posting a paper on the site has decreased from 35 to 15 days over the same period. Both numbers for 2016 roughly correspond to the industry-wide averages for biology-related journals.[19][20]The average acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted in 2020 and 2021 ranges from 47.9 to 49.9%.[1]

Management

edit

The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge.[21]He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012.[22]Damian Pattinson then held the chief editorial position until December 2015.[23]Joerg Heber was aseditor-in-chieffrom November 2016[24]before Emily Chenette took over in that position in March 2021.[25]

Publication concept

edit

PLOS Oneis built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead,PLOS Oneonly verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment.[26]

Each submission will be assessed by a member of thePLOS ONEEditorial Board before publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees. If published, papers will be made available for community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating.[27]

According toNature,the journal's aim is to "challengeacademia's obsession with journal status andimpact factors".[28]Being an online-only publication allowsPLOS Oneto publish more papers than a print journal. In an effort to facilitate publication of research on topics outside, or between, traditional science categories, it does not restrict itself to a specific scientific area.[26]

Papers published inPLOS Onecan be of any length, contain full color throughout, and contain supplementary materials such as multimedia files. Reuse of articles is subject to aCreative Commons Attribution License.In the first four years following launch, it made use of over 40,000 external peer reviewers.[29]The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics handling submissions and publishes approximately 50 % of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2.9 experts.[30]Registered readers can leave comments on articles on the website.[28]

Business model

edit
A welcome message fromPLoStoNature Publishing Groupon the launch ofScientific Reports,[31]inspired by a similar message sent in 1981 byAppletoIBMupon the latter's entry into thepersonal computermarket with itsIBM Personal Computer[32]

As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, open access toPLOS Oneis financed by anarticle processing charge,typically paid by the author's institution or by the author. This model allows PLOS journals to make all articles available to the public for free immediately upon publication. As of April 2021,PLOS Onecharges a publication fee of$1,745to publish an article.[33]Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce the fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds.[33]

PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the first time in 2010,[34]largely due to the growth ofPLOS One.The success ofPLOS Onehas inspired a series of other open access journals,[35]including some othermega journalshaving broad scope, low selectivity, and a pay-to-publish model usingCreative Commons licenses.[36][37]

Reception

edit

In September 2009,PLOS Onereceived the Publishing Innovation Award of theAssociation for Learned and Professional Society Publishers.[38]The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term prospects". In January 2010, it was announced that the journal would be included in theJournal Citation Reports,[39]and the journal received an impact factor of 4.411 in 2010. According to theJournal Citation Reports,the journal has a 2023impact factorof 2.9..[40]

Abstracting and inde xing

edit

The articles are indexed in:[27]

Response to controversial publications

edit

Alleged sexism in one peer review instance

edit

On April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at theUniversity of SussexandAustralian National Universityrespectively, posted a rejection letter, which they said was sent to them by a peer reviewer for a journal they did not wish to name. The rejection letter concerned Ingleby and Head's paper about differences in PhD-to-postdoc transition between male and female scientists. The reviewer argued that the authors should "find one or two male biologists to work with" to ensure the manuscript does not drift into "ideologically biased assumptions", comments which the authors found to be "unprofessional and inappropriate" and veering intosexism.Shortly afterward, the journal was reported to bePLOS One.By May 1,PLOShad announced that it was severing ties with the reviewer responsible for the comments and asking the editor who relayed them to step down.PLOS Onealso issued an apology statement following the incident.[41]

CreatorGate

edit

On March 3, 2016, the editors ofPLOS Oneinitiated a reevaluation of an article about the functioning of the human hand[42]due to outrage among the journal's readership over a reference to "Creator" inside the paper.[43]The authors, who received grants from the ChineseNational Basic Research ProgramandNational Natural Science Foundation of Chinafor this work, responded by saying "Creator" is a poorly-translated idiom (Tạo hóa(Giả);lit. 'that which creates or transforms')[44]which means "nature" in the Chinese language. Despite the authors' protests, the article wasretracted.[45] A less sympathetic explanation for the use of "Creator" was suggested toThe Chronicle of Higher Educationby Chinese-language experts who noted that the academic editor listed on the paper, Renzhi Han, previously worked at the Chinese Evangelical Church in Iowa City.[46]

Sarah Kaplan ofThe Washington Postpresented a detailed analysis of the problem, which she named#CreatorGate,and concluded that the journal's hasty retraction may have been an even bigger offense than the publication of the paper in the first place.[47]To contrastPLOS One's handling of the problem, she used a 12-year history of retraction ofthe fraudulent paper on vaccine and autismbyThe Lancetand the lack of a retraction of a debunked study on "arsenic life"byScience.[48][49]Others added the history of the article inNatureon "water memory"that was not retracted either.[50]

Jonathan Eisen,chair of the advisory board of a sister journalPLOS Biologyand an advocate foropen-access,commendedPLOS Onefor their prompt response onsocial media,which in his words "most journals pretend doesn't even exist".[51]David Knutson issued a statement about the paper processing atPLOS One,which praised the importance of post-publication peer review and described their intention to offer open signed reviews in order to ensure accountability of the process.[52]From March 2 to 9, the research article received a total of 67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses onPLOS Onesite.[42]Signe Dean ofSBSput #CreatorGate in perspective: it is not the most scandalous retraction in science, yet it shows how a social media outrage storm does expedite a retraction.[53]

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

edit

Main article:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

On August 27, 2018, the editors ofPLOS Oneinitiated a reevaluation of an article they published two weeks earlier submitted byBrown University School of Public Healthassistant professor Lisa Littman.[54]The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or "cluster outbreaks" ingender dysphoriaamong young people, which Littman called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria".[54]Data was obtained from a survey placed on three websites for concerned parents of children with gender dysphoria, asking for responses from parents whose children had experienced "sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21".[55]The study was criticized by transgender activists likeJulia Seranoand medical professionals like developmental and clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft, as being politicized and having self-selected samples, as well as lacking clinical data or responses from the adolescents themselves.[56][57]

On March 19, 2019,PLOS Onecompleted its review. PLOS One psychology academic editor Angelo Brandelli Costa acted as a reviewer criticizing the methods and conclusion of the study in a formal comment, saying, "The level of evidence produced by the Dr. Littman's study cannot generate a new diagnostic criterion relative to the time of presentation of the demands of medical and social gender affirmation."[58]In a separate letter apologizing for the failure of peer review to address the issues with the article,PLOS OneEditor-in-chiefJoerg Hebersaid, "we have reached the conclusion that the study and resultant data reported in the article represent a valid contribution to the scientific literature. However, we have also determined that the study, including its goals, methodology, and conclusions, were not adequately framed in the published version, and that these needed to be corrected."[59]

The paper was republished with updated Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, but the Results section was mostly unchanged. In her correction, Littman emphasized that the article was "a study of parental observations which serves to develop hypotheses", saying "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time. This report did not collect data from the adolescents and young adults (AYAs) or clinicians and therefore does not validate the phenomenon. Additional research that includes AYAs, along with consensus among experts in the field, will be needed to determine if what is described here as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) will become a formal diagnosis."[54]

References

edit
  1. ^"Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation".Archived fromthe originalon March 2, 2007.RetrievedDecember 17,2002.
  2. ^"Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation".Archived fromthe originalon 2007-02-25.
  3. ^Zivkovic, Bora."Trackbacks are here!".Archived fromthe originalon 2010-10-11.Retrieved2015-03-15.
  4. ^"PLOS ONE Milestones".dipity.January 6, 2012. Archived fromthe originalon 2012-01-06.Retrieved2023-03-24.,a timeline onDipity
  5. ^David Knutson (23 July 2012)."New PLOS look".PLOS BLOG.Public Library of Science.Archivedfrom the original on 1 August 2012.Retrieved6 August2012.
  6. ^abKaiser, Jocelyn (June 4, 2014)."Output Drops at World's Largest Open Access Journal".Science.Retrieved2015-10-26.
  7. ^abcMorrison, Heather (January 5, 2011)."PLoS ONE: now the world's largest journal?".Poetic Economics Blog.Retrieved2011-01-16.
  8. ^Taylor, Mike (February 21, 2012)."It's Not Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Communication".Discover Magazine.Retrieved2012-03-03.
  9. ^Hoff, Krista (January 3, 2013)."PLOS ONEPapers of 2012 ".everyONE Blog.Retrieved2013-05-21.
  10. ^Kayla Graham (January 6, 2014)."Thanking Our Peer Reviewers – EveryONEEveryONE".Blogs.plos.org.Retrieved2015-05-17.
  11. ^"PLoS One Impact Factor|2016|2015|2014 - BioxBio".bioxbio.Retrieved2016-10-17.
  12. ^Davis, Phil (February 2, 2016)."As PLOS ONE Shrinks, 2015 Impact Factor Expected to Rise".The Scholarly Kitchen.Retrieved2016-10-17.
  13. ^Davis, Phil (January 5, 2017)."PLOS ONE Output Drops Again In 2016".The Scholarly Kitchen.Retrieved2017-01-05.
  14. ^abcPetrou, Christos (May 7, 2020)."The Megajournal Lifecycle".The Scholarly Kitchen.Retrieved2021-01-02.
  15. ^Konkeil, Stacey (December 20, 2011)."PLOS ONE:Five Years, Many Milestones ".everyONE Blog.Retrieved2011-12-24.
  16. ^"A Publishing Milestone to Celebrate: 200,000 PLOS Research Articles and Counting".STM Publishing News.27 September 2017.Retrieved2017-09-27.
  17. ^Davis, Phil (April 6, 2017)."Scientific Reports Overtakes PLOS ONE As Largest Megajournal".The Scholarly Kitchen.Retrieved2017-11-27.
  18. ^Davis, Phil (November 27, 2017)."PLOS Reports $1.7M Loss In 2016".The Scholarly Kitchen.Retrieved2017-11-27.
  19. ^Kendall, Powell (February 11, 2016)."Does it take too long to publish research?"(PDF).Nature.530(7589): 148–151.Bibcode:2016Natur.530..148P.doi:10.1038/530148a.PMID26863966.S2CID1013588.Retrieved2016-03-10.
  20. ^Himmelstein, Daniel (February 10, 2016)."The history of publishing delays".Satoshi Village.Retrieved2016-03-10.
  21. ^Poynder, Richard (June 15, 2006)."Open Access: Stage Two".Open and Shut?.Archivedfrom the original on Jul 8, 2011.Retrieved2011-03-27.
  22. ^Jerram, Peter (May 8, 2012)."Publisher of PLOS ONE moves to new Open-Access initiative".The official PLOS Blog.Archivedfrom the original on Jan 3, 2014.Retrieved2012-06-22.
  23. ^"Research Square hires Damian Pattinson, former Editorial Director of PLOS ONE".STM Publishing News.21 January 2016.Retrieved2016-09-17.
  24. ^"PLOS appoints Dr. Joerg Heber Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE | The Official PLOS Blog".September 16, 2016.Retrieved2016-09-17.
  25. ^"A New Editor-in-Chief for PLOS ONE/ | The Official PLOS Blog".March 11, 2021.Retrieved2021-05-18.
  26. ^abMacCallum, C. J. (2006)."ONE for All: The Next Step for PLOS".PLOS Biol.4(11): e401.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040401.PMC1637059.PMID17523266.
  27. ^abOne.org/static/information.action PLOS ONE Journal Information.PLOS One.org (September 4, 2012). Retrieved on 2013-06-20.
  28. ^abGiles, J. (2007)."Open-Access Journal Will Publish First, Judge Later".Nature.445(7123): 9.Bibcode:2007Natur.445....9G.doi:10.1038/445009a.PMID17203032.
  29. ^"Thanking PLOS ONE Peer Reviewers".PLOS ONE.December 2010.Retrieved2011-01-16.
  30. ^"PLOS ONE Editorial and Peer-Review Process".PLOS ONE.2008. Archived fromthe originalon 2012-04-21.Retrieved2013-12-12.
  31. ^Allen, Liz (January 19, 2011)."Welcome, Nature. Seriously".Archivedfrom the original on 2012-01-11.
  32. ^Welcome, IBM. Seriously (from Apple in 1981)onFlickr.August 21, 1981.
  33. ^ab"Publication Fees".PLOS.Archivedfrom the original on 2021-04-29.Retrieved2021-04-30.
  34. ^Peter Jerram (July 20, 2011)."2010 PLoS Progress Update".Archivedfrom the original on January 11, 2012.RetrievedJanuary 16,2012.
  35. ^Sitek, Dagmar; Bertelmann, Roland (2014)."Open Access: A State of the Art".In Sönke Bartling; Sascha Friesike (eds.).Opening Science.Springer. p. 139.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9.ISBN978-3-319-00025-1.
  36. ^Rhodri Jackson and Martin Richardson, "Gold open access: the future of the academic journal?", Chapter 9 in Cope and Phillip (2014), pp. 223–248.The Future of the Academic Journal,2nd ed., Chandos Publishing, July 1, 2014, 478 pages.
  37. ^Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon,Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing ChargesArchivedJune 2, 2014, at theWayback Machine,March 2014, 69 pages. Final Report to a consortium of research funders comprisingJisc,Research Libraries UK,Research Councils UK,theWellcome Trust,theAustrian Science Fund,theLuxembourg National Research Fund,and theMax Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.
  38. ^"ALPSP Awards 2010–finalists announced".ALPSP.Archived fromthe originalon 11 December 2011.Retrieved9 September2010.
  39. ^Patterson, Mark (January 5, 2010)."PLOS ONE indexed by Web of Science".PLOS Blogs.Archived fromthe originalon 2017-07-05.Retrieved2010-09-09.
  40. ^"PLOS One".2023 Journal Citation Reports.Web of Science(Science ed.).Clarivate.2024.
  41. ^Bernstein, Rachel (May 1, 2015)."PLOS ONE ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm".Science.Retrieved2015-10-27.
  42. ^abLiu, Ming-Jin; Xiong, Cai-Hua; Xiong, Le; Huang, Xiao-Lin (5 January 2016)."Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living".PLOS One.11(1): e0146193.Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1146193L.doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0146193.ISSN1932-6203.PMC4701170.PMID26730579.S2CID16569415.WikidataQ28005525.(Retracted, seedoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151685)
  43. ^Davis, Nicola (March 7, 2016)."Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted after furore".The Guardian.Retrieved2016-03-09.
  44. ^Mair, Victor(March 4, 2016)."The hand of god".Language Log.Retrieved2016-03-10.
  45. ^ThePLOS ONEStaff (March 4, 2016)."Retraction: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living".PLOS ONE.11(3): e0151685.Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1151685..doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151685.PMC4778690.PMID26943177.
  46. ^Basken, Paul (March 7, 2016)."Paper Praising 'Creator' Puts Fear of God in Open-Access Giant".The Chronicle of Higher Education.Retrieved2016-03-09.
  47. ^Kaplan, Sarah (March 8, 2016)."#CreatorGate: How a study on hands sparked an uproar about science, God and ethics in publishing".The Washington Post.Retrieved2016-03-09.
  48. ^Wakefield, AJ;Murch, SH; Anthony, A; Linnell, J; Casson, DM; Malik, M; Berelowitz, M; Dhillon, AP; Thomson, MA; Harvey, P; Valentine, A; Davies, SE; Walker-Smith, JA (1998)."Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children".The Lancet.351(9103): 637–641.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.PMID9500320.S2CID439791.Retrieved2016-03-09.(Retracted, seedoi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4,PMID20137807,Retraction Watch)
  49. ^Wolfe-Simon, Felisa;Blum, Jodi Switzer; Kulp, Thomas R.; Gordon, Gwyneth W.; Hoeft, Shelley E.; Pett-Ridge, Jennifer; Stolz, John F.; Webb, Samuel M.; Weber, Peter K.; Davies, P. C. W.; Anbar, A. D.;Oremland, R. S.(December 2, 2010)."A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus".Science.332(6034): 1163–1166.Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1163W.doi:10.1126/science.1197258.PMID21127214.
  50. ^Cressey, Daniel (March 10, 2016)."Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern. Apparently creationist research prompts soul searching over process of editing and peer review"(PDF).Nature.531(7593): 143.Bibcode:2016Natur.531..143C.doi:10.1038/531143f.S2CID4469173.Retrieved2016-03-10.
  51. ^Kotack, Madison (March 3, 2016)."A Science Journal Invokes 'the Creator,' and Science Pushes Back".Wired.Retrieved2016-03-09.
  52. ^Schneider, Leonid (March 4, 2016)."Hand of God paper retracted: PLOS ONE" could not stand by the pre-publication assessment "".For Better Science.Retrieved2016-03-09.
  53. ^Dean, Signe (March 7, 2016)."Not just #creatorgate: Most scandalous retractions in science".SBS.Archived fromthe originalon Sep 19, 2016.Retrieved2016-03-09.
  54. ^abcLittman, Lisa (16 August 2018)."Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria".PLOS One.13(8): e0202330.Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1302330L.doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0202330.ISSN1932-6203.PMC6095578.PMID30114286.WikidataQ58774961.(erratum)
  55. ^"Rapid-onset gender dysphoria: New study recruiting parents".4thWaveNow.July 2, 2016. Archived fromthe originalon 2018-03-09.Retrieved2019-03-21.
  56. ^"Why are so many teenage girls appearing in gender clinics?".The Economist.September 1, 2018.Retrieved2019-03-21.
  57. ^Serano, Julia (August 22, 2018)."Everything You Need to Know About Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria".Medium.Retrieved2019-03-21.
  58. ^Costa, Angelo Brandelli (19 March 2019)."Formal comment on: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria".PLOS One.14(3): e0212578.Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1412578B.doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0212578.ISSN1932-6203.PMC6424477.PMID30889187.WikidataQ62125755.
  59. ^Heber, Joerg (March 19, 2019)."Correcting the scientific record on gender incongruence – and an apology".PLOS One.Retrieved2019-03-21.
Wikimedia Commons has media related toPLOS ONE.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLOS_One&oldid=1235798071"