The growth of Open Access has increased the pool of digital information that is available for Text Mining. This relatively new interdisciplinary field emerged in the 1980s and combines techniques from linguistics, computer science and
Over the past few decades, numerous initiatives have sought public input on the development of potentially controversial research, from stem cell and human embryonic research to genetic engineering and nanotechnology. The reasons for soliciting public
Teachers, like researchers, face enormous pressure to keep up with the rapid pace of scientific discovery. But they must also find compelling ways to communicate the latest findings to their students. To help biology teachers
Recently, Kent Anderson posted some misleading comments about PLoS ONE on the Scholarly Kitchen, a blog site established by the Society for Scholarly Publishing. Although several PLoS community supporters have responded swiftly and vigorously to the comments, PLoS has also decided to make a public statement because Mr Anderson’s comments were extreme and have caused bad feeling particularly among the editorial board members who work so hard to make PLoS ONE a success (on a voluntary basis).
Earlier this year, PLoS sent out a series of surveys to authors whose work was considered by our journals in 2008. We wanted to find out what authors think about all aspects of our services – from submission and peer review, through to publication and the functionality of the PLoS journal web sites.
On the Dec. 6th TWiV podcast, Vincent Racaniello and Dickson Despommier discuss the symbiotic bacterium Wolbachia, the origin of the 2009 influenza H1N1 virus, and ‘the lure of original antigenic sin.’
In 2009, in this online world, how do most scientists and medics find the articles they need to read? The answer for the content published by PLoS (and no doubt by many other publishers) is via one of the now ubiquitous search engines, be it one that only searches the scientific literature, or more likely, one that searches the entire web. Given that readers tend to navigate directly to the articles that are relevant to them, regardless of the journal they were published in, why then do researchers and their paymasters remain wedded to assessing individual articles by using a metric (the impact factor) that attempts to measure the average citations to a whole journal? We’d argue that it’s primarily because there has been no strong alternative. But now alternatives are beginning to emerge.
PLoS production and editorial staff are in close contact with our soon to be published authors around the world and they often get to know them quite well during the to and fro of correspondence. A scientist from Mexico, who has a book review article that has been accepted for publication and will shortly be published in PLoS Biology, told us what it is like to live and work there at the current time, and we thought that we would share that with you.
The latest impact factors (for 2007) have just been released from Thomson Reuters. They are as follows:
PLoS Biology – 13.5
PLoS Medicine – 12.6
PLoS Computational Biology – 6.2
PLoS Genetics – 8.7
PLoS Pathogens – 9.3
The end of February saw the publication of a package of papers in PLoS ONE and PLoS Biology describing the findings of a Scripps Institution of Oceanography/UC San Diego research expedition to the remote Line Islands of the Central Pacific. The Academic Editor of the two PLoS ONE articles, Niyaz Ahmed, has posted comments on both papers but here is an extract from his commentary on one of the articles, Baselines and Degradation of Coral Reefs in the Northern Line Islands, and on the package as a whole.