PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE
Title	PLOS ONE
Discipline	Multidisciplinary science
Abbreviation	PLOS ONE
Publisher	Public Library of Science
History	2006–present

PLOS ONE is a multidisciplinary, open-access scientific journal established to publish primary research from across the natural sciences, medicine, engineering, and related fields. Launched by the Public Library of Science initiative, the journal rapidly became notable for adopting a publication model focused on methodological soundness rather than perceived significance. Its platform intersects with global research ecosystems including institutions such as the National Institutes of Health, Wellcome Trust, European Research Council, and universities like Harvard University and University of Oxford.

History

PLOS ONE was announced amidst debates over publishing reform involving stakeholders such as James Watson, proponents of open access including Peter Suber, and organizations like the Open Society Foundations. The journal began publication in 2006, during the tenure of editors affiliated with institutions such as Stanford University and University of California, San Francisco, and in the context of broader movements exemplified by events like the Budapest Open Access Initiative and initiatives from the National Science Foundation. Over the next decade, editorial developments paralleled reforms at legacy publishers including Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley-Blackwell, and intersected with controversies exemplified by the STAP cell affair and editorial disputes involving figures connected to Nature and Science.

Scope and Editorial Policy

The journal defined its scope to include rigorous primary research across domains represented by organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, and professional societies such as the American Chemical Society and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Editorial policy emphasizes technical soundness and transparency, invoking standards similar to reporting guidelines from groups like CONSORT, PRISMA, and ARRIVE. Policies on conflicts of interest, data availability, and ethical oversight reference norms advanced by institutions like the World Health Organization and ethics bodies such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Peer Review and Publication Process

Manuscripts undergo peer review coordinated by an editorial board composed of researchers with affiliations including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Cambridge, University of Tokyo, and national academies such as the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of Canada. Review criteria prioritize methodological rigor over novelty, similar in principle to editorial stances seen at journals like BMJ Open and Scientific Reports. The process has evolved to include editorial triage, external reviewers drawn from networks associated with institutions like Karolinska Institute and Johns Hopkins University, and post-publication editorial handling akin to workflows at platforms such as F1000Research.

Open Access and Licensing

As an open-access publisher, the journal adopted licensing frameworks influenced by advocates such as Richard Stallman and funders including Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Articles are distributed under licenses compatible with reuse norms promoted by the Creative Commons community, aligning with policies adopted by funders like the European Commission and repositories such as PubMed Central and Europe PMC. The journal’s article-processing charge model has been discussed in forums involving stakeholders including COPE and university libraries like Harvard Library and The British Library.

Reception and Criticism

Reception has ranged from praise by open-access advocates including Peter Suber and Aaron Swartz to criticism from editorial commentators at Nature and The Lancet. Critics have raised concerns paralleling debates seen in cases involving Beall's List and operations at publishers such as MDPI and Frontiers, focusing on perceived variability in peer review and editorial oversight. Defenders have pointed to transparent correction mechanisms and comparisons with retraction episodes like the Surgisphere controversy and debates around reproducibility highlighted by projects at Centre for Open Science.

Impact and Metrics

The journal’s influence is tracked using citation indices maintained by organizations such as Clarivate Analytics and Scopus from Elsevier, and altmetrics provided by platforms like Altmetric.com and CrossRef. Papers published have been cited by researchers across institutions including University of California, Berkeley, Max Planck Society, and Chinese Academy of Sciences, and have been used in policy documents from agencies such as World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency. Metric debates echo broader scholarly communication discussions involving measures promoted by the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and initiatives like ORCID and Google Scholar.

Category:Open access journals