PLOS One

PLOS One (stylized PLOS ONE, and formerly PLoS ONE) is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006. The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. The Public Library of Science began in 2000 with an online petition initiative by Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus, formerly director of the National Institutes of Health and at that time director of Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Patrick O. Brown, a biochemist at Stanford University; and Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

PLOS ONE
DisciplineMultidisciplinary
LanguageEnglish
Edited byEmily Chenette
Publication details
History2006–present
Publisher
Public Library of Science
FrequencyUpon acceptance
Yes
LicenseCreative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International
3.752 (2021)
Standard abbreviations
ISO 4PLOS ONE
Indexing
ISSN1932-6203
LCCN2006214532
OCLC no.228234657
Links

Submissions are subject to an article 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 the Journal Citation Reports and received its first impact factor of 4.411. PLOS One papers are published under Creative Commons licenses.

History

Development

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded 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 One was launched in December 2006 as a beta version named PLOS 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 One came out of "beta" in October 2008.

In September 2009, as part of its article-level metrics program, PLOS One made its full online usage data, including HTML page views and PDF or XML download statistics, publicly available for every published article. In mid-2012, as part of a rebranding of PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name to PLOS One.[5]

Output and turnaround
YearPapers Published
20071,200[6]
20082,800[6]
20094,406[7]
20106,749[7]
201113,798[8]
201223,468[9]
201331,500[10]
201430,040[11]
201528,107[12]
2016 22,054[13]
2017 21,185[14]
2018 18,859[14]
2019 16,318[14]

The number of papers published by PLOS One grew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat. 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 by PLOS One.[15] By September 2017, PLOS One confirmed they had published over 200,000 articles.[16] By November 2017, the journal Scientific Reports overtook PLOS One in terms of output.[17][18]

At PLOS 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 for Nature. 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]

Management

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 as editor-in-chief from November 2016[24] before Emily Chenette took over in that position in March 2021.[25]

Publication concept

PLOS One is 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 One only 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 the PLOS ONE Editorial 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 to Nature, the journal's aim is to "challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors".[28] Being an online-only publication allows PLOS One to 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 in PLOS One can be of any length, contain full color throughout, and contain supplementary materials such as multimedia files. Reuse of articles is subject to a Creative 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
A welcome message from PLoS to Nature Publishing Group on the launch of Scientific Reports,[31] inspired by a similar message sent in 1981 by Apple to IBM upon the latter's entry into the personal computer market with its IBM Personal Computer.[32]

As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, open access to PLOS One is financed by an article 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 One charges a publication fee of $1,745 to 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 of PLOS One. The success of PLOS One inspired a series of other open access journals,[35] including some that have been criticized as "megajournals" having broad scope, low selectivity, and a pay-to-publish model using Creative Commons licenses.[36][37]

Reception

In September 2009, PLOS One received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association 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 the Journal Citation Reports,[39] and the journal received an impact factor of 4.411 in 2010. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2020 impact factor of 3.240.[40]

Abstracting and indexing

The articles are indexed in:[27]

  • AGRICOLA
  • BIOSIS Previews
  • Chemical Abstracts Service
  • EMBASE
  • Food Science and Technology Abstracts
  • GeoRef
  • MEDLINE/PubMed/Index Medicus
  • Science Citation Index Expanded
  • Scopus
  • The Zoological Record

Response to controversial publications

Alleged sexism in one peer review instance

On April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at the University of Sussex and Australian National University respectively, 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 doesn't drift into "ideologically biased assumptions", comments which the authors found to be "unprofessional and inappropriate" and veering into sexism. Shortly afterward, the journal was reported to be PLOS One. By May 1, PLOS had announced that it was severing ties with the reviewer responsible for the comments and asking the editor who relayed them to step down. PLOS One also issued an apology statement following the incident.[41]

CreatorGate

On March 3, 2016, the editors of PLOS One initiated 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 Chinese National Basic Research Program and National Natural Science Foundation of China for this work, responded by saying "Creator" is a poorly-translated idiom (造化(者), literally "(that which) creates or transforms")[44] which means "nature" in the Chinese language. Despite the authors' protests, the article was retracted.[45] A less sympathetic explanation for the use of "Creator" was suggested to The Chronicle of Higher Education by 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 of The Washington Post presented 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 contrast PLOS One's handling of the problem, she used a 12-year history of retraction of the fraudulent paper on vaccine and autism by The Lancet and the lack of a retraction of a debunked study on "arsenic life" by Science.[48][49] Others added the history of the article in Nature on "water memory" that was not retracted either.[50]

Jonathan Eisen, chair of the advisory board of a sister journal PLOS Biology and an advocate for open-access, commended PLOS One for their prompt response on social media, which in his words "most journals pretend doesn't even exist".[51] David Knutson issued a statement about the paper processing at PLOS 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 on PLOS One site.[42] Signe Dean of SBS put #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

On August 27, 2018, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article published two weeks earlier by Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman.[54] The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or "cluster outbreaks" in gender dysphoria among young people, which Littman called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria".[55] 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".[56] The study was criticized by transgender activists like Julia Serano and 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.[57][58]

On March 19, 2019, PLOS One completed its review. Reviewer Angelo Brandelli Costa criticized 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."[59] In a separate letter apologizing for the failure of peer review to address the issues with the article, PLOS One Editor-in-chief Joerg Heber said, "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."[60]

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."[61]

References
  1. "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Archived from the original on March 2, 2007. Retrieved December 17, 2002.
  2. "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Archived from the original on 2007-02-25.
  3. Zivkovic, Bora. "Trackbacks are here!". Archived from the original on 2010-10-11. Retrieved 2015-03-15.
  4. One/PLoS-ONE-Milestones/ "PLOS ONE Milestones". dipity. January 6, 2012. Archived from One/PLoS-ONE-Milestones/ the original on 2012-01-06. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help); Check |url= value (help), a timeline on Dipity
  5. David Knutson (23 July 2012). "New PLOS look". PLOS BLOG. Public Library of Science. Archived from the original on 1 August 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2012.
  6. Kaiser, Jocelyn (June 4, 2014). "Output Drops at World's Largest Open Access Journal". Science. Retrieved 2015-10-26.
  7. Morrison, Heather (January 5, 2011). "PLoS ONE: now the world's largest journal?". Poetic Economics Blog. Retrieved 2011-01-16.
  8. Taylor, Mike (February 21, 2012). "It's Not Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Communication". Discover Magazine. Retrieved 2012-03-03.
  9. Hoff, Krista (January 3, 2013). "PLOS ONE Papers of 2012". everyONE Blog. Retrieved 2013-05-21.
  10. Kayla Graham (January 6, 2014). "Thanking Our Peer Reviewers – EveryONEEveryONE". Blogs.plos.org. Retrieved 2015-05-17.
  11. "PLoS One Impact Factor|2016|2015|2014 - BioxBio". www.bioxbio.com. Retrieved 2016-10-17.
  12. Davis, Phil (February 2, 2016). "As PLOS ONE Shrinks, 2015 Impact Factor Expected to Rise". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2016-10-17.
  13. Davis, Phil (January 5, 2017). "PLOS ONE Output Drops Again In 2016". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2017-01-05.
  14. Petrou, Christos (May 7, 2020). "The Megajournal Lifecycle". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2021-01-02.
  15. Konkeil, Stacey (December 20, 2011). "PLOS ONE: Five Years, Many Milestones". everyONE Blog. Retrieved 2011-12-24.
  16. "A Publishing Milestone to Celebrate: 200,000 PLOS Research Articles and Counting | STM Publishing News". www.stm-publishing.com. Retrieved 2017-09-27.
  17. "Scientific Reports Overtakes PLOS ONE As Largest Megajournal - The Scholarly Kitchen". The Scholarly Kitchen. April 6, 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  18. "PLOS Reports $1.7M Loss In 2016 - The Scholarly Kitchen". The Scholarly Kitchen. November 27, 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  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. PMID 26863966. S2CID 1013588. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  20. Himmelstein, Daniel (February 10, 2016). "The history of publishing delays". Satoshi Village. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  21. Poynder, Richard (June 15, 2006). "Open Access: Stage Two". Open and Shut Blog. Retrieved 2011-03-27.
  22. Jerram, Peter (May 8, 2012). "Publisher of PLOS ONE moves to new Open-Access initiative". The official PLOS Blog. Retrieved 2012-06-22.
  23. "Research Square hires Damian Pattinson, former Editorial Director of PLOS ONE | STM Publishing News". www.stm-publishing.com. Retrieved 2016-09-17.
  24. "PLOS appoints Dr. Joerg Heber Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE | The Official PLOS Blog". September 16, 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-17.
  25. "A New Editor-in-Chief for PLOS ONE/ | The Official PLOS Blog". March 11, 2021. Retrieved 2021-05-18.
  26. MacCallum, C. J. (2006). "ONE for All: The Next Step for PLOS". PLOS Biol. 4 (11): e401. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040401. PMC 1637059. PMID 17523266.
  27. One.org/static/information.action PLOS ONE Journal Information. PLOS One.org (September 4, 2012). Retrieved on 2013-06-20.
  28. Giles, J. (2007). "Open-Access Journal Will Publish First, Judge Later". Nature. 445 (7123): 9. Bibcode:2007Natur.445....9G. doi:10.1038/445009a. PMID 17203032.
  29. "Thanking PLOS ONE Peer Reviewers". PLOS ONE. December 2010. Retrieved 2011-01-16.
  30. One.org/static/review.action "PLOS ONE Editorial and Peer-Review Process". PLOS ONE. 2008. Archived from One.org/static/review.action the original on 2012-04-21. Retrieved 2013-12-12. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help); Check |url= value (help)
  31. Allen, Liz (January 19, 2011). "Welcome, Nature. Seriously". Archived from the original on 2012-01-11.
  32. Welcome, IBM. Seriously (from Apple in 1981) on Flickr. August 21, 1981.
  33. "Publication Fees". PLOS. Archived from the original on 2021-04-29. Retrieved 2021-04-30.
  34. Peter Jerram (July 20, 2011). "2010 PLoS Progress Update". Archived from the original on January 11, 2012. Retrieved January 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. ISBN 978-3-319-00025-1.
  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 Charges Archived June 2, 2014, at the Wayback Machine, March 2014, 69 pages. Final Report to a consortium of research funders comprising Jisc, Research Libraries UK, Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Science Fund, the Luxembourg National Research Fund, and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.
  38. "ALPSP Awards 2010–finalists announced". ALPSP. Archived from the original on 11 December 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
  39. Patterson, Mark (January 5, 2010). "PLOS ONE indexed by Web of Science". PLOS Blogs. Retrieved 2010-09-09.
  40. "PLOS One". 2020 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Clarivate. 2021-06-30.
  41. Bernstein, Rachel (May 1, 2015). "PLOS ONE ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm". Science. Retrieved 2015-10-27.
  42. Liu, Ming-Jin; Xiong, Cai-Hua; Xiong, Le; Huang, Xiao-Lin (January 5, 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. PMC 4701170. PMID 26730579. (Retracted, see doi: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. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  44. Mair, Victor (March 4, 2016). "The hand of god". Language Log. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  45. The PLOS ONE Staff (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. PMC 4778690. PMID 26943177.
  46. Basken, Paul (March 7, 2016). "Paper Praising 'Creator' Puts Fear of God in Open-Access Giant". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  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. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  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. PMID 9500320. S2CID 439791. Retrieved 2016-03-09. (Retracted)
  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. PMID 21127214.
  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. S2CID 4469173. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  51. Kotack, Madison (March 3, 2016). "A Science Journal Invokes 'the Creator,' and Science Pushes Back". Wired. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  52. Schneider, Leonid (March 4, 2016). "Hand of God paper retracted: PLOS ONE "could not stand by the pre-publication assessment"". For Better Science. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  53. Dean, Signe (March 7, 2016). "Not just #creatorgate: Most scandalous retractions in science". SBS. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  54. Littman, Lisa (August 27, 2018). "Statement by PLOS ONE staff". PLOS ONE. 13 (8): e0202330. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1302330L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330. PMC 6095578. PMID 30114286.
  55. Littman, Lisa (August 16, 2018). "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports". PLOS ONE. 13 (8): e0202330. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1302330L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214157.s001.
  56. "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria: New study recruiting parents". July 2, 2016. Archived from the original on 2018-03-09. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  57. "Why are so many teenage girls appearing in gender clinics?". The Economist. September 1, 2018. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  58. Serano, Julia (August 22, 2018). "Everything You Need to Know About Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria". Medium. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  59. Costa, Angello Brandelli (March 19, 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. PMC 6424477. PMID 30889187.
  60. Heber, Joerg (March 19, 2019). "Correcting the scientific record on gender incongruence – and an apology". PLOS One. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  61. Littman, Lisa (August 16, 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. PMC 6095578. PMID 30114286.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to PLOS ONE.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.