PLOS ONE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from PLoS ONE)
Jump to: navigation, search
PLOS ONE  
PLOS ONE logo 2012.svg
Abbreviated title (ISO 4)
 PLOS ONE
Discipline Multidisciplinary
Language English
Edited by Iratxe Puebla (temporary)
Publication details
Publisher
Publication history
 2006–present
Frequency Upon acceptance
Yes
License Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International
3.057
Indexing
ISSN 1932-6203
LCCN 2006214532
OCLC no. 228234657
Links

PLOS ONE (originally 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. Operating under a pay-to-publish model, PLOS ONE publishes approximately 70% of submitted manuscripts. 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. According to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. Although the number of submissions decreased from 2013 to 2014, PLOS ONE remains the world’s largest journal by number of papers published (about 30,000 a year, or 85 papers per day) and has a 2015 journal impact factor of 3.057.

History[edit]

Development[edit]

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 it moved from a weekly publication schedule to a daily one, publishing articles as soon as they became ready.[4] In October 2008 PLoS ONE came out of "beta". Also in September 2009, as part of its Article-Level Metrics program, PLoS ONE made the full online usage data—e.g., HTML page views, PDF, XML downloads—for every published article publicly available. In mid-2012, as part of a rebranding of PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name to PLOS ONE.[5]

Output and turnaround[edit]

In 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world.[6] In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012, PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers.[10] In 2013, PLOS ONE published 31,500 papers.[11] 2014 saw the first year-over-year decline in published articles, to 30,040.

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.[12][13]

Management[edit]

The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge.[14] He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012.[15] Damian Pattinson then held the chief editorial position until December 2015. PLOS is currently searching for a new Editor-in-Chief for PLOS ONE.

Publication concept[edit]

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.[16]

According to Nature, the journal's aim is to "challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors".[18] 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.[16]

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, version 2.5. In the first four years following launch, it made use of over 40,000 external peer reviewers.[19] The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics handling submissions and publishes approximately 70 % of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2.9 experts.[20] Registered readers can leave comments on articles on the website.[18]

Business model[edit]

A welcome message from PLoS to Nature Publishing Group on the launch of Scientific Reports,[21] 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.[22]

As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, PLOS ONE is financed by charging authors a publication fee. The "author-pays" model allows PLOS journals to provide all articles to everybody for free (i.e., open access) immediately after publication. As of July 2010, PLOS ONE charged authors US$1,350[23] to publish an article. Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce the fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds.[24] This model has drawn criticism, however. In 2011 Richard Poynder posited that journals such as PLoS ONE that charge authors for publication rather than charging users for access may produce a conflict of interest that reduces peer review standards (accept more articles, earn more revenue).[25] Stevan Harnad instead argues for a "no fault" peer-review model, in which authors are charged for each round of peer review, regardless of the outcome, rather than for publication.[26] PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the first time in 2010,[27] largely due to the growth of PLOS ONE.

Influence[edit]

Main article: Mega journal

The "PLOS ONE model" has inspired a series of other journals,[28][29][30] having broad scope and low selectivity, now called megajournals, and a pay-to-publish model, usually published under Creative Commons licenses.

Community recognition and citation information[edit]

In September 2009, PLOS ONE received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers.[31] 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 PLOS ONE citations were to be analyzed by Journal Citation Reports,[32] and PLOS the journal received an impact factor of 4.411 in 2010. The impact factor has declined steadily each year since then, to 3.057 for 2015.[33] In 2015, PLOS ONE ranked 25 on Google Scholar for all journals in terms of citations.[34]

Year Impact Factor[35]
2015 3.057
2014 3.234
2013 3.534
2012 3.73
2011 4.092
2010 4.411
2009 4.351

Abstracting and indexing[edit]

The articles are indexed in:[17]

Controversy[edit]

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.[36] The excerpt made negative comments about women's aptitude for science and advised Ingleby and Head to find male co-authors. Shortly afterward, the journal was reported to be PLOS ONE.[37] By May 1, PLOS 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 director Damian Pattinson also stated that the journal was considering moving away from the tradition of anonymous peer review.[36]

#CreatorGate[edit]

The Guardian and Washington Post illustrated #CreatorGate by Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam

On March 3, 2016, the editors of PLOS ONE initiated a reevaluation of an article about the functioning of the human hand[38] due to outrage among the journal's readership over a reference to "Creator" inside the paper.[39] 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")[40] which means "nature" in the Chinese language. Despite the authors' protests, the article was retracted.[41] "Creator" is found in the paper in three sentences:

  • "The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way".
  • "Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention".
  • "In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years".

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.[42] Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post presented 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.[43] 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 Lancet and no retraction of debunked study on "arsenic life" by Science.[44][45] Others added the history of the article in Nature on "water memory" that was not retracted either.[46]

Jonathan Eisen, chair of advisory board of a sister journal PLOS Biology and an advocate for open-access, defended PLOS ONE for prompt response to social media, which in his words "most journals pretend doesn’t even exist".[47] 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.[48] From March 2 to 9, the research article received total 67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS ONE site, the first one from cell biologist turned science journalist Leonid Schneider who cited a Wikipedia article rather than scientific literature as an authority.[49][50] Chris Matyszczyk of CNET analyzed readers comments and argued that Creationism or Intelligent Design finds itself very unwelcome in most scientific circles but in the end, neither side has complete answers.[51] 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.[52]

The dissemination activity on social media within one week of publicity was:

  • 1,309 tweets which share the article on Twitter;
  • 7,432 posts, 1,516 shares and 4,570 Likes on Facebook.

The article was viewed 169,926 times on PLOS site in the first ten days of March, compared to 555 views in January and 116 views in February.[53]

On March 10, 2016, BioLogos, a website of a Christian advocacy group established by the 16th Director of the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins after publication of his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, started Blog series Faith and Science Seeking Understanding to review the controversy raised by #CreatorGate.[54] The series follows the accusations of anti-Christian/anti-”design” bias in the scientific world by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and David Klinghoffer of Evolution News and Views.[55][56] BioLogos authors argue that avoiding mentions of God in scientific literature is not a censorship but a rule of a successful game akin to the rules of soccer or football.[57][58]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Retrieved December 17, 2002. 
  2. ^ "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Retrieved May 2006. 
  3. ^ Zivkovic, Bora. "Trackbacks are here!". 
  4. ^ PLOS ONE Milestones, a timeline on Dipity
  5. ^ David Knutson (July 23, 2012). "New PLOS look". PLOS BLOG. Public Library of Science. Archived from the original on 6 August 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2012. 
  6. ^ Kaiser, Jocelyn (2014-06-04). "Output Drops at World's Largest Open Access Journal". Science Magazine. Retrieved 2015-10-26. 
  7. ^ Morrison, Heather (5 January 2011). "plos one now worlds largest journal". Poetic Economics Blog. Retrieved 16 January 2011. 
  8. ^ Taylor, Mike. "It’s Not Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Communication." Discover Magazine. February 21, 2012. Retrieved on March 3, 2012.
  9. ^ Konkeil, Stacey (20 December 2011). "PLOS ONE: Five Years, Many Milestones". everyONE Blog. Retrieved 24 December 2011. 
  10. ^ Hoff, Krista (3 January 2013). "PLOS ONE Papers of 2012". everyONE Blog. Retrieved 21 May 2013. 
  11. ^ Kayla Graham (2014-01-06). "Thanking Our Peer Reviewers – EveryONEEveryONE". Blogs.plos.org. Retrieved 2015-05-17. 
  12. ^ Kendall, Powell (11 February 2016). "Does it take too long to publish research?" (PDF). Nature 530 (7589): 148–151. doi:10.1038/530148a. PMID 26863966. Retrieved 2016-03-10. 
  13. ^ Himmelstein, Daniel (10 February 2016). "The history of publishing delays". Satoshi Village. Retrieved 2016-03-10. 
  14. ^ Poynder, Richard (15 June 2006). "Open Access: Stage Two". Open and Shut Blog. Retrieved 27 March 2011. 
  15. ^ Jerram, Peter (8 May 2012). "Publisher of PLOS ONE moves to new Open-Access initiative". The official PLOS Blog. Retrieved 22 June 2012. 
  16. ^ a b 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. 
  17. ^ a b PLOS ONE Journal Information. Plosone.org (2012-09-04). Retrieved on 2013-06-20.
  18. ^ a b Giles, J. (2007). "Open-Access Journal Will Publish First, Judge Later". Nature 445 (7123): 9. doi:10.1038/445009a. PMID 17203032. 
  19. ^ "Thanking PLOS ONE Peer Reviewers". PLOS ONE. Dec 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2011. 
  20. ^ "PLOS ONE Editorial and Peer-Review Process". PLOS ONE. 2008. Retrieved 12 December 2013. 
  21. ^ Allen, Liz (January 19, 2011) "Welcome, Nature. Seriously", (WebCite)
  22. ^ Welcome message from Apple to IBM ([ WebCite])
  23. ^ "PLoS ONE Guidelines for Authors". PLoS ONE. Retrieved 9 September 2010. 
  24. ^ "Publication Fees". PLOS. Retrieved 1 January 2015. 
  25. ^ Poynder, Richard (7 March 2011). "PLOS ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing". Open and Shut Blog. Retrieved 27 March 2011. 
  26. ^ Harnad, Stevan (June–July 2011). "No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed". D-Lib Magazine. doi:10.1045/july2010-harnad. Retrieved 27 March 2011. 
  27. ^ Peter Jerram (July 20, 2011). "2010 PLoS Progress Update". Archived from the original on January 16, 2012. Retrieved January 16, 2012. 
  28. ^ Sitek, Dagmar; Bertelmann, Roland (2014). "Open Access: A State of the Art". In Sönke Bartling; Sascha Friesike. Opening Science. Springer. p. 139. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9. ISBN 978-3-319-00025-1. 
  29. ^ Rhodri Jackson and Martin Richardson, "Gold open access: the future of the academic journal?", Chapter 9 in Cope and Phillip (2014), p.223-248. The Future of the Academic Journal, 2nd ed., Chandos Publishing, Jul 1, 2014, 478 pages.
  30. ^ Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon, Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges, 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.
  31. ^ "ALPSP Awards 2010–finalists announced". ALPSP. Retrieved 9 September 2010. 
  32. ^ Patterson, Mark (5 January 2010). "PLOS ONE indexed by Web of Science". PLOS Blogs. Retrieved 9 September 2010. 
  33. ^ "PLOS ONE". 2014 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2015. 
  34. ^ "Google Scholar Metrics". Scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2015-05-17. 
  35. ^ "Impact Factor Rankings". researchgate.net. Retrieved 2016-04-25. 
  36. ^ a b Bernstein, Rachel (2015-05-01). "PLOS ONE ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm". Science Magazine. Retrieved 2015-10-27. 
  37. ^ "It's a man's world — for one peer reviewer, at least". Retraction Watch. 2015-04-29. Retrieved 2015-10-27. 
  38. ^ 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146193. PMC 4701170. PMID 26730579. Retrieved 2016-03-09.  (Retracted)
  39. ^ Davis, Nicola (7 March 2016). "Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted after furore". The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  40. ^ Mair, Victor (4 March 2016). "The hand of god". Language Log. Retrieved 10 March 2016. 
  41. ^ The PLOS ONE Staff (March 4, 2016). "Retraction: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE 11 (3): e0151685. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151685. Retrieved 2016-03-15. 
  42. ^ Basken, Paul (7 March 2016). "Paper Praising ‘Creator’ Puts Fear of God in Open-Access Giant". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  43. ^ Kaplan, Sarah (8 March 2016). "#CreatorGate: How a study on hands sparked an uproar about science, God and ethics in publishing". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  44. ^ 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". Lancet 351 (9103): 637–641. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID 9500320. Retrieved 2016-03-09.  (Retracted)
  45. ^ 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. (2 December 2010). "A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus". Science 332 (6034): 1163–1166. doi:10.1126/science.1197258. PMID 21127214. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  46. ^ Cressey, Daniel (10 March 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. doi:10.1038/531143f. Retrieved 2016-03-10. 
  47. ^ Kotack, Madison (3 March 2016). "A Science Journal Invokes 'the Creator,' and Science Pushes Back". Wired. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  48. ^ Schneider, Leonid (4 March 2016). "Hand of God paper retracted: PLOS ONE "could not stand by the pre-publication assessment"". For Better Science. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  49. ^ "Reader Comments on Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. 9 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  50. ^ Schneider, Leonid (2 March 2016). "Proper design by the Creator?". PLOS ONE. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  51. ^ Matyszczyk, Chris (4 March 2016). "Scientific journal cites a creator. Scientists say OMG". CNET. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  52. ^ Dean, Signe (7 March 2016). "Not just #creatorgate: Most scandalous retractions in science". SBS. Retrieved 2016-03-09. 
  53. ^ "Metrics of Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. 10 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-03-10. 
  54. ^ "Faith and Science Seeking Understanding: Reviewing #Creatorgate - Blog Series". BioLogos. 10 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-03-12. 
  55. ^ Ham, Ken (6 March 2016). "Secularist Intolerance Against Scientific Paper That Briefly Mentions Creator". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2016-03-12. 
  56. ^ Klinghoffer, David (7 March 2016). "PLOS ONE "Creator" Scandal Enters Witch-hunt Territory". Evolution News and Views. Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2016-03-12. 
  57. ^ Applegate, Kathryn (10 March 2016). "Reviewing #Creatorgate: Why a scientist shouldn't use the word "Creator" in their articles". BioLogos. Retrieved 2016-03-12. 
  58. ^ Stump, Jim (10 March 2016). "Reviewing #Creatorgate: How Science is Like Soccer". BioLogos. Retrieved 2016-03-12. 

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to PLOS ONE.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLOS_ONE&oldid=727314414"