PLOS one

[effectedtag]

What are your thoughts on PLos one? It is an open-access peer-reviewed journal. I have heard mixed things, those in the academic community seem to look down upon it. How would an admission member look at a publication if it was published in PLOS one.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Isoval]

It's fine. Not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

 

[Goro]

What are your thoughts on PLos one? It is an open-access peer-reviewed journal. I have heard mixed things, those in the academic community seem to look down upon it. How would an admission member look at a publication if it was published in PLOS one.

With an impact factor of 2.7, I'd say it's a AA (as in minor league baseball) journal.

Meaning, it's not Nature, but it's still a peer-reviewed journal that's in Pubmed, and as such, it's a real journal.

So chill.

 

[deleted947265]

They've caught flack from certain groups for publishing a lot of junk studies. That doesn't mean any research they publish is bad. It's still peer-reviewed and has a pretty decent impact factor. It's probably a much better journal than its impact factor would suggest.

If you were published 20 manuscripts in a known predatory journal... that would raise a couple of eye brows.

If Adcoms were going to hold it against us for publishing research in journals that have had published a lot of duds than publishing in the Lancet would be an autoreject because Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, Wakefield AJ 1998 was a thing that happened.

You put a lot of work in and got published. Congrats!

 

[CherryRedDracul]

Most research out there is hot garbage anyway especially in this publish-or-perish climate. An Impact Factor of 2.7 isn't bad.

If you can get decent work published at your level, it's a positive.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

They've caught flack from certain groups for publishing a lot of junk studies. That doesn't mean any research they publish is bad. It's still peer-reviewed and has a pretty decent impact factor. It's probably a much better journal than its impact factor would suggest.

If you were published 20 manuscripts in a known predatory journal... that would raise a couple of eye brows.

If Adcoms were going to hold it against us for publishing research in journals that have had published a lot of duds than publishing in the Lancet would be an autoreject because Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, Wakefield AJ 1998 was a thing that happened.

You put a lot of work in and got published. Congrats!

At least they retracted it?