After all the coverage lavished on Nigel the Nigersaurus last week we were a little worried that this week’s crop of papers in PLoS ONE would be unfairly overlooked. That would be a great shame as there are lots of good papers published this week. Two are particularly ‘media friendly’ but which will prove the more popular?
PLoS ONE published a paper today. This might not sound very unusual but today is Thursday and PLoS ONE papers are usually published on a Wednesday (or to be precise late Tuesday in time for Wednesday). This paper however is a special case.
Today is my Birthday. I’m entering a prime of life, although I’m not going to tell you which one. I only mention this because PLoS ONE has given me an extra special gift. This day, my birthday as I may have mentioned, we accepted for publication our 1,000th paper.
There is a wonderful editorial in Nature this week which I have to share with you. Apparently Nature has been getting complaints about the fact that they continue to print verbatim their 1869 mission statement which talks about “scientific men”. Obviously this is causing female scientists to conclude that they can’t submit work to Nature and giving them a feeling of guilt if they read its content which is so clearly not meant for them. Typography to the rescue!
A week can be a long time in politics; well, a year in scientific publishing can feel like an age. On 1st August last year, PLoS ONE opened its doors for submission and so we have decided to call today our official birthday. So what has the last year been like and how have things changed?
I’ve been waiting to write this Blog posting for a while and now I can. As from today PLoS ONE has a user rating system for its articles. All users can now rate articles in three subjective categories: Insight, Reliability and Style. We have made the tool, now we need you to come and use it.
There is an interesting editorial out today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ). It applauds the establishment of the journal Open Medicine by former editors of CMAJ. It also raises the question of what qualifies a journal to call itself ‘open access‘.
This probably isn’t news to many of you but for some time now PLoS ONE has been posting referees’ reports alongside the papers it publishes. Not all reports are posted and reports are often not presented in their entirety. Also some of them have the referees’ name attached and some don’t. This could be a little confusing so I thought it was time I explained what precisely we were doing and why.
This needs shouting about. PLoS ONE just published its 500th paper! Yep that’s right since launch, a matter of five an a half months or twenty five weeks, PLoS ONE has published over 500 pieces of peer reviewed original research.