Opinions on PLoS One?

[ImagineThis]

I have a first author MS that I'm trying to get published. So far, I have been rejected at two journals (one before review and the second one after review), both of which are particularly reputable in my field. The comments on the recent review seemed pretty positive but the two reviewers were somewhat inconsistent in the changes they wanted.

While I know that there are changes to make regardless of where I resubmit, my PI and I have been considering PLoS One. Does anyone know how rapid the review process actually is? I'd love to have the paper published before I apply to MD/PhD programs in the early summer, but I'm not exactly sure whether it would be better to just submit to PLoS One and get it in or hold out for a different journal taking the risk that if I get rejected again, it probably won't be accepted for a while. In other words, will there be a stigma against PLoS One on my resume that makes it better for me to risk having a MS "under review" instead of "accepted" at a better journal.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SilverBvllet]

First off, congrats on a successful project...you're on the verge of having a paper, which most applicants do not have (even to MSTP). Many reputable people have published in PLoS one. Personally I would not short change myself and if I am confident my work is good enough to get into a higher impact journal then I will submit there. But I would not call publishing in PLoS shortchanging myself. By the way you can send updates to schools if it comes out after you submit AMCAS.

also a paper published, is worth 2 in review. (imo)

 

[BarmyArmy]

Publishing in a field specific journal with higher impact will probably look better, but in terms of the MS helping you with your application, you might be better off getting it out in PLoS One. Yes PLoS One is like the trash bin of PLoS journals but it still has decent impact factor and it is generally accepted as a solid journal.
A word of caution though, even at PLoSOne the review process will probably take longer than three months. So you might end up with a "submitted" manuscript at a lower impact journal.

 

[Neuronix]

will there be a stigma against PLoS One on my resume that makes it better for me to risk having a MS "under review" instead of "accepted" at a better journal.

No.

 

[evo]

Publishing in a field specific journal with higher impact will probably look better, but in terms of the MS helping you with your application, you might be better off getting it out in PLoS One. Yes PLoS One is like the trash bin of PLoS journals but it still has decent impact factor and it is generally accepted as a solid journal.
A word of caution though, even at PLoSOne the review process will probably take longer than three months. So you might end up with a "submitted" manuscript at a lower impact journal.

+1 on the time, PLoS one will take at least 2 months to get your review back. OP, also keep in mind that some reviewers who reviewed your previous submission may be reviewing this one as well, so I would want to at least address some of their concerns (at least the good ones), before sending it to another solid journal.

 

[ImagineThis]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Evo, I will be sure to make the review changes. Beyond the level of what the impact is on my application I want to make sure that I publish the best paper possible =). I appreciate all of the input.

 

[whiteshadodw]

i was a 4th auth in a paper that our group submitted to PLoS. it took about 3-4 months to get the first review back, and then the paper was finally published about 2 months ago (we started the process back in jan 10, and paper was published dec 10). so for us, almost 11 months.

 

[ImagineThis]

Thats absolutely crazy! That makes me really not want to publish there. I realize that some if not most journals take around that amount of time to get published but I thought PLoS One marketed itself on rapid publication. Given that, I really may do better at a higher impact journal if it is going to take the same amount of time to publish.

 

[evo]

Thats absolutely crazy! That makes me really not want to publish there. I realize that some if not most journals take around that amount of time to get published but I thought PLoS One marketed itself on rapid publication. Given that, I really may do better at a higher impact journal if it is going to take the same amount of time to publish.

If you field is very math related/quantitative analysis, you can try MSB. Turn around time is about 1 month.

 

[ImagineThis]

Its actually more psychology based neuroscience. I was going to try to publish in Neuroreport (9-10 weeks to publish) but that would require substantial shortening of the paper. Are there any non computational neuroscience journals that have a relatively quick turnaround?

FYI Its not just the "have a publication" on my application component that makes me want a rapid turnaround, its also just getting it in and finished. This project has been really drawn out and after 2 rejections that took about 4 months each I just really want to get the MS in a journal that is a a good fit and wont make me sweat it out for another semester.

Thank you all for your feedback on this. It is very helpful.

 

[PfNO22]

Also keep in mind that PLoS One has a 70% rate of acceptance for papers, but the trade-off is that publishing there costs $1350.

I think PLoS One is a terrific journal and has a very high impact factor. Especially for being a public access journal. It has broken all the rules.

 

[evo]

Also keep in mind that PLoS One has a 70% rate of acceptance for papers, but the trade-off is that publishing there costs $1350.

I think PLoS One is a terrific journal and has a very high impact factor. Especially for being a public access journal. It has broken all the rules.

This is assuming that the paper passes editorial review?

 

[PfNO22]

This is assuming that the paper passes editorial review?

I should have said: 70% of submissions pass editorial review.

 

[ImagineThis]

Does this mean that 70% of submissions are ultimately accepted?

 

[PfNO22]

Does this mean that 70% of submissions are ultimately accepted?

http://www.plosone.org/static/review.action#2

"On average, PLoS ONE publishes 69%** of all submissions."

 

[whiteshadodw]

Thats absolutely crazy! That makes me really not want to publish there. I realize that some if not most journals take around that amount of time to get published but I thought PLoS One marketed itself on rapid publication. Given that, I really may do better at a higher impact journal if it is going to take the same amount of time to publish.

i wasn't writing the paper, nor doing any of the editing, but something tells me it wasn't on our groups priority list (we had grant issues too). PLoS is definitely a good option if things haven't gone well with another journal. can't let all that work go to waste.

 

[thisisapickle]

I am going to throw down my opinion on this... my background to preface my opinion, i have 10 publications 2 in plos one as 1st author (others range fromm nature medicine to blood) I have played this game a few times

1st i saw someone say it took them 11 months to get there paper published... according to plos one the average turnaround on 1st submission is 21 days my experience was 13 and 20 days (2 months and 3.5 from first submission to pubmed access)... i would have to imagine their paper required significant revisions or at the very least this is an exception to norm.

2nd: to the op remember that the people reviewing your file/interviewing have likely published before and many are reviewers/editors themselves and they understand how long and difficult this process is. so an article "in submission" is not going to hurt, that much. so dont stress about getting it locked down... take your time and choose the best journal and if time address the issues from the other reviewers or at least alter your manuscript to explain why you did or not do said experiments or analysis.

3rd: (not trying to be a jerk, just realistic) i know nothing about your work, but if you got rejected pre peer review and post peer review and you were not invited to resubmit revisions? if that is the case it sounds like your manuscript has questionable value to your field. with that said if you do pub in plos one the journal does have an ISI impact of 4.5ish which is not to bad. remember also for your paper to have any weight in the future for grants it not only matters what the journals impact is, but also how many times your paper is cited. if you publish in a very low impact journal many foreign institutions will not have access to it and foreign institutes are many times the best "citers" of med to low impact papers. Additionally, if you pick up a cell or nature paper in genetics or mol biology you'll see one or two citations from plos one.

So is plos one the best journal in the world? of course not, it has its flaws! but they are quick and will get your paper out to the masses, which is very important and nobody (and this is almost universally true) will think any less of you for publishing in it.

As a word of encouragement at a recent meeting i was approached by a Whitehead Institute professor and leader in my field; they came up to me and congratulated me on my plos one paper and discussed for an hour on it (they knew nothing of my other papers in much higher impact journals:-(

 

[ImagineThis]

Thank you thisisapickle. That was a particularly helpful post. I think that given my current situation you are certainly correct that I need to look towards journal access to try and get my work as broad of an audience as possible.

I spoke to my PI and she seems to agree that we should pursue PLoS One. I've made the changes from the previous reviewers so hopefully I can get a 21 day turnaround, that would be fantastic. It's actually getting close to the time where I will have completed data for a second study, so getting this out in a timely manner will help me to focus my energy on that.

I appreciate all of the feedback. Thanks everyone!

 

[saeamini]

I have had some papers in journals with 3X impact factor of PLOS ONE , But i've only got lots of media attention and interview for my PLOS ONE paper and I belive my Plos one paper will benefit patients mora than my other ones. What matters is " what you publish" and not " where you publish" . Have you heard the story of retracted papers from Nature and Cell?

 

[lens]

I remember seeing this thread awhile ago, so I searched for it to add my own quick thoughts.

I submitted a manuscript to PLoS ONE on August 1, received a "minor revisions" notice this morning (September 6), and quickly re-submitted the manuscript tonight. I wanted the Academic Editor to have it in his inbox first thing tomorrow morning so there's no delay in pushing it through to acceptance (if my changes were sufficient, obviously).

Several articles have been published from my lab in PLoS ONE, and a number of my MSTP friends have gotten their papers into PLoS ONE. Here are some of my impressions:

1. It is not always a "last stop" or "third choice" journal (although it can be, if you're frustrated with rejections or major revision requests).
2. Be very judicious about your choice of Academic Editor (AE). This is the person who will be vetting your article and sending it out to reviewers. There are TONS of AE's to choose from, so it behooves you to select someone who might have a connection to your work, unless you're afraid s/he's going to poo-poo it right out of the gate. You might not get your first choice AE but if you do, things could go more quickly for you.
3. Biomedical engineering papers get through the process more quickly than biology papers. There are many reasons why this could be. One might be that the sub-fields of BME are more easily delineated, and everyone in the field knows each other's work quite well. Plus, just from talking with my colleagues both inside and outside BME, the BME professors/postdocs/students take the PLoS ONE "rapid review" philosophy very seriously, whereas the non-BME people seem to take things more slowly. It seems to me that biologists seem to want tons of new data during the review process, while BME reviewers are more willing to let "smaller" papers with less data get through, without new data. It also appears that biology reviewers ask for a lot more substantive revisions, whereas BME reviewers ask for clarifications, but they hew strictly to the purported PLoS ONE philosophy of "we'll publish anything as long as it's got sound methods." Notice the philosophy doesn't say, "we'll publish anything as long as it's got sound hypothesis-driven research." The hypotheses, methods, and results should be clear -- but if your work is mainly phenomenological or descriptive, that shouldn't shut you out of PLoS ONE (although you have no chance in hell of getting into the "more reputable" journals).
4. Professors love PLoS ONE. They take it seriously. They don't see it as a "trash bin," even if students and postdocs view it as one. Agree or not with what PLoS (and SAGE Open, BMJ Open, Open Biology, and Biology Open) is trying to do, but you can't deny that it's a model that's working very well. People will cite your work if it's important and indexed and findable. People will ignore your work if it's shoddy, unimportant, and/or impossible to access. A number of students in my MSTP who have graduated before me have gone on interviews for residency where their PLoS ONE papers are brought up. I think it's because clinicians see PLoS ONE as a potential target for their work, eventually, so it's on their minds, whereas your field-specific journal may be completely obscure to them, even if it's got an IF of 12.

 

[Jorje286]

My paper as an undergrad in PlosOne got published in 4 days. No kidding. That's probably because the editor reviewed it himself and he's extremely well known in the field.

 

[atsai3]

Also agree that PLoS ONE is not viewed as a trash bin. Many of the researchers in my department will go there as second-line because (a) the turnaround time is quick; (b) they will review the science separately from the statistical significance of your findings (which is different from many other journals, which frequently refuse to publish negative findings); (c) the impact factor places it on a par with other journals in my field; and (d) papers in PLoS ONE frequently get picked up by the media compared to other journals in our field with a comparable impact factor. Our department chair thinks open access is the future, and he frequently encourages junior faculty to publish there now, before it gets too competitive.

 

[ModerateMouse]

Great thread, hopefully I can add a data point.

Jan 22/2013: submitted to PLOS ONE.

It's funny that some people think PLOS ONE has a low impact factor. My field's highest impact factor journal is 5.9, which is not far off from PLOS' 4.

Our reasons for submitting here?

(1) my supervisor would like this out as a quickly as possible so he can use the paper as a foundation for future grants/studies

(2) we were rejected by the top journal in our specialized field after a drawn out revision process. It was frustrating because the reviewers who asked for major revisions were not the same ones who actually ended up seeing the revised version! The new reviewers had a different perspective and rejected, even though we addressed the overwhelming majority of the original reviewers' points.

EDIT: Timeline update FYI.

Jan 24/2013: "Manuscript Submitted"
Feb 1/2013: "Editor invited"
Feb 4/2013: "Under Review"
Feb 22/2013: "Required Reviews Completed"
Mar 3/2013: "Decision in Process"
Mar 4/2013: "Major Revision"
Apr 18/2013: Revised version submitted
May 14/2013: "Minor Revision"
May 16/2013: Revised version submitted
May 23/2013: "Accepted"

4 months from initial submission to acceptance (including 6 weeks for making revisions).

 

[TriagePreMed]

I know PLOS-One has only about an IF of 4, but I think most people in science still consider it to be a decent publication. The time to publish can be good depending on what changes are requested by the reviewers. I wouldn't shy away from PLOS-One if you've already tried a few journals in the field with a higher IF.

 

[erikreinertsen]

No.

+1 on this. Not like I'm an authority / reviewer / close to being faculty, but I've consistently read quality papers from PLoS ONE and personally consider it to be a fantastic journal. I've read a fair number of garbage papers from "mid-impact factor" tier journals that are supposed to be decent for its respective field. There are garbage papers even in God-tier Nature / Science / NEJM that superficially look like magical witchcraft miracle research until you carefully peruse the actual experiments.

Quality of the paper itself, and being able to articulate your passion and meaningful results of a project is WAY more important than fretting about a few IF points.