Diverse perspectives on science and medicine
We recently passed our six-month anniversary of published peer review options at PLOS!!! Already you can read more than 800 PLOS articles accompanied by their complete peer review history — and that number is
This post is a request for comments on the preprint Data Repository Selection: Criteria That Matter via this online form on behalf of the authors of the preprint (full list available there). Background At PLOS
This post was co-written by Dan Morgan, Director of Community Relations; Rebecca Kirk, Associate Editorial Director, Madison Crystal, Brand Communications Manager; and Veronique Kiermer; Publisher and Executive Editor Preprints enable authors to share their
orcid.org/0000-0001-8771-7239 Researchers have told us that posting manuscripts as preprints before—or at the same time as—submitting them to a journal is a great way to gain additional feedback from the community and improve their paper.
orcid.org/0000-0001-8771-7239We are pleased to share results from a pilot with 13 journals that tested the Materials Design Analysis Reporting (MDAR) checklist, a minimum standards reporting checklist for the life sciences. The MDAR framework, a minimum
orcid.org/0000-0001-8771-7239 I’m happy to announce PLOS’ participation in a new service, Review Commons, that will provide a platform for rapid, objective, journal-independent peer reviews for manuscripts and preprints. We are excited to be part of
Authors with preprints on the new health sciences preprint server medRxiv now have the option to transfer their manuscripts for publication consideration at relevant PLOS journals in the topic area, PLOS Medicine, PLOS NTDs, or
At PLOS Computational Biology, one of our driving motivations is to provide services and support to our community of authors, editors, reviewers and readers. Transparency and reproducibility in peer review and reporting of results are
For more than five years, PLOS authors have used ORCID to make their professional lives easier. Now reviewers at PLOS can take advantage of the same benefits to track their contributions, claim credit, and
In February, we asked researchers about the biggest change they hope to see in Open Science. Nearly 3,000 of you weighed in. Here’s what you had to say… In May, we introduced published peer review
