PLoS anyone?

[Ty Row]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm interested in getting anybody's feedback on publishing in the Public Library of Science... Some of my pubmed searches in recent months(compared to years ago when I started MSTP) have brought up interesting PLoS abstracts/manuscripts.

Out of curiosity, do you think it would be unwise to pursue a publication with PLoS versus say an established, mid-tier journal in your field? Relatively speaking, it is very new. I like their format, but it's hard to know how this would come across on a CV compared to, perhaps, a more conventional journal. And I have no idea how my PI would react to the idea. Everyone has different strategies with publishing (i.e. - 2 mid-tier pubs sequentially vs. waiting for 1 high-tier pub, etc), so I was just wondering where you think PLoS would fit in the mix.

 

[yeastfan21]

Which PLoS journal? (There are a bunch.) What field is your research in?

PLoS Biology and PLoS Genetics (and probably some of the others too... I'm just less familiar with them) are respected journals that consistently put out good papers. I can't imagine hesitating to submit there on the basis of their reputation (unless, of course, you think you can get something published in cell, nature, science, genes dev, etc. ect...)

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Just avoid PLoS One, which is really hit or miss.

 

[pseudoknot]

Just avoid PLoS One, which is really hit or miss.

PLoS One, as I understand it, is not a selective journal. It has a different philosophy of publishing everything and inviting public comment. I'm not familiar enough with it to comment on how well it works, although it's an interesting idea. Still, it's not appropriate to compare it to the others, especially PLoS Biology and Medicine, which are highly selective and fairly high profile at this point.

 

[alacast]

I love PLoS and open access principles in general. The editors of the PLoS journals have good heads on their shoulders and good articles on their pages. I particularly like what they've done regarding impact factors:

http://www.plos.org/cms/node/478

I imagine this is partially in response to ISI's treatment of PLoS One, but given that their flagship journals were kicking butt in the impact factor department, I find this to be quite an admirable action.

A note regarding PLoS One and PLoS Currents: They don't operate under the traditional journal paradigm, and that's ok. They definitely have a lower bar than the other journals, and that's ok. In my humble opinion, PLoS Currents is where most science writing should be heading, with the more traditional format focusing on reviews and meta analysis.

Disclaimers:
My advisor is a PLoS editor.
I've published in PLoS.
I intend to submit something to PLoS in the near future.
I really like open access.

 

[bd4727]

PLoS One, as I understand it, is not a selective journal. It has a different philosophy of publishing everything and inviting public comment. I'm not familiar enough with it to comment on how well it works, although it's an interesting idea. Still, it's not appropriate to compare it to the others, especially PLoS Biology and Medicine, which are highly selective and fairly high profile at this point.

PLoS one is really interesting. I heard Harold Varmos give a talk about it (he started all this open access stuff).

Basically the papers are still peer reviewed, but there are less reviewers, and they are looking to see only that your methods were appropriate, statistics done correctly etc versus does this data substantially advance the field. Because of that, it doesn't have a super impact factor, but IMO it is very important to know what other people have done that hasn't really worked that well (think of all the money spent on duplicated experiments that other people already know failed but couldn't publish).

To address the original post, PLoS genetics and the other one mentioned both have pretty high impact factors. They are run in a more traditional manner in regards to the peer review.

 

[alacast]

Because of that, it doesn't have a super impact factor

Actually, I think PLoS One never received an impact factor rating, because they didn't meet ISI's criteria. However, I might be wrong. Regardless, others have tried to calculate it, and if I remember correctly it was actually rather high.

 

[nomogram3]

We've published here twice. The reviewers were competent and the editorial staff is really top notch.

 

[Aptamer]

Actually, I think PLoS One never received an impact factor rating, because they didn't meet ISI's criteria. However, I might be wrong. Regardless, others have tried to calculate it, and if I remember correctly it was actually rather high.

Is it because PLoS One is relatively new in its inception?

 

[unhigenyx]

PLoS could really be a hit or miss. It is very selective journal. Esp for being such a new journal. One of our ms got rejected in <3 days (got accepted in PNAS rather quickly). I can assure you most of my committee members were happy seeing PNAS instead of PLoS on resume.

I love open access and that primarily was the reason to go for PLoS. If you believe in IF its 14+ the last time I checked. More importantly, their scope is as wide as or wider than PNAS. I would definitely submit ms whenever I get a chance. They love non-traditional stuff too.

 

[rprasan1985]

If the impact factor is of concern, PLoS One is not the way to go.

PLoS Biology is a very selective, well-respected journal with an awesome impact factor. Unless they're aiming for Nature/Science/Cell, PLoS Biology would be the ideal first choice. It's got a substantial reader base because of its broad scope (anything bio-related) and because it is open-access. IF-wise, its above Genes and Dev, Current Biology etc.

I don't know much about PLoS Genetics, except that I've read a couple of excellent papers. I've also read a paper that I was sure did not deserve PLoS Genetics, so take that for what it's worth.