Comments on: Should PLoS ONE count as peer-reviewed? http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19 Just another WordPress weblog Wed, 08 Sep 2010 06:46:36 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Samuel http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-136 Samuel Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:30:40 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-136 I think PLoS ONE is an excellent initiative and should definitely be considered as a peer-reviewed journal. My only concern is that it is not indexed in Web of Science. As a young scientist, this makes a difference since most people, when they want to assess your "quality", the first thing they do is to type your name in WOS and largely judge you based on the results (number of papers, citations, h-index,...). I know it's not a good method and it's a bad mirror of one's scientific quality, but it's an easy and widespread way to proceed. So, no IF doesn't bother me, but having my papers indexed in WOS with how many times they are cited is important. Why isn't it possible, since you can find the PLoS ONE papers in Web of Knowledge? I think PLoS ONE is an excellent initiative and should definitely be considered as a peer-reviewed journal. My only concern is that it is not indexed in Web of Science. As a young scientist, this makes a difference since most people, when they want to assess your “quality”, the first thing they do is to type your name in WOS and largely judge you based on the results (number of papers, citations, h-index,…). I know it’s not a good method and it’s a bad mirror of one’s scientific quality, but it’s an easy and widespread way to proceed. So, no IF doesn’t bother me, but having my papers indexed in WOS with how many times they are cited is important. Why isn’t it possible, since you can find the PLoS ONE papers in Web of Knowledge?

]]> By: Krishnasastry http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-129 Krishnasastry Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:07:41 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-129 I am surprised at the doubts expressed by many regarding the peer review of PLoS ONE. Anybody saying that this journal does not 'peer-reivew' is rubbish. I have published a paper in this journal recently, i had 2 and half (A4 size, single space) comments by two reviewers. One has gone figure by fig, line by line and asked some very, very pertinent questions on the concept we are working. The second had asked questions (very important) regarding the hypothesis. He also suggested us to do additional experiments. We have done the same and found his comments very informative. I suppose the editor also read our paper before coming to his conclusion. Now, how can people comment that PLoS ONE does not have a rigourous peer-review? I consider the review much better than some the journals in IF 4-6 range in which i published earlier! I received comments from a JBC reviewer that were hilarious! We said one protein activates a phosphatase and the reviewer says that i have not shown any data about the phosphatase activity of my protein! Hence, this paper should be rejected! Finally, Impact factor is not a substitution for reading the paper. I am surprised at the doubts expressed by many regarding the peer review of PLoS ONE.

Anybody saying that this journal does not ‘peer-reivew’ is rubbish. I have published a paper in this journal recently, i had 2 and half (A4 size, single space) comments by two reviewers. One has gone figure by fig, line by line and asked some very, very pertinent questions on the concept we are working. The second had asked questions (very important) regarding the hypothesis. He also suggested us to do additional experiments. We have done the same and found his comments very informative. I suppose the editor also read our paper before coming to his conclusion.

Now, how can people comment that PLoS ONE does not have a rigourous peer-review? I consider the review much better than some the journals in IF 4-6 range in which i published earlier! I received comments from a JBC reviewer that were hilarious! We said one protein activates a phosphatase and the reviewer says that i have not shown any data about the phosphatase activity of my protein! Hence, this paper should be rejected!

Finally, Impact factor is not a substitution for reading the paper.

]]> By: Andreas Bryhn http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-126 Andreas Bryhn Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:20:01 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-126 I am surprised about this post on PLoS ONE:s reviewing standards. My experience after having published one paper in the journal is that the reviewing process was stricter than for most other scientific journals; my article received comments and requests from the editor and three peer-reviewers, which is one reviever more than the usual standard in my field. I am surprised about this post on PLoS ONE:s reviewing standards.

My experience after having published one paper in the journal is that the reviewing process was stricter than for most other scientific journals; my article received comments and requests from the editor and three peer-reviewers, which is one reviever more than the usual standard in my field.

]]> By: Jasen Wise http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-127 Jasen Wise Sat, 30 May 2009 02:04:41 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-127 PLoS One breaks the habit of good science only being published if it has lots of money behind it, and sells the products advertised in the issue. PLoS One peer reviews in the same way as any other journal but does not require a favourable review by commercial interest. Large journals such as Nature frequently publish papers that site PLoS One. That in its self is proof enough. PLoS One breaks the habit of good science only being published if it has lots of money behind it, and sells the products advertised in the issue. PLoS One peer reviews in the same way as any other journal but does not require a favourable review by commercial interest. Large journals such as Nature frequently publish papers that site PLoS One. That in its self is proof enough.

]]> By: PLoS One impact factor http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-132 PLoS One impact factor Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:57:15 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-132 The impact factor of PLoS One in 2008 has been predicted according to the citation in 2008 of its articles pulished in 2006 and 2007. It is between 5 and 6. Well done for PLoS One. The impact factor of PLoS One in 2008 has been predicted according to the citation in 2008 of its articles pulished in 2006 and 2007. It is between 5 and 6. Well done for PLoS One.

]]> By: predict Plosone impact factor http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-121 predict Plosone impact factor Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:25:09 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-121 Who can predict the impact factor in 2008 for the Journal of Plosone, which has published so many articles. Who can predict the impact factor in 2008 for the Journal of Plosone, which has published so many articles.

]]> By: Antonio Brunetti, MD, PhD http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-120 Antonio Brunetti, MD, PhD Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:53:04 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-120 In any case, does someone knowswhether or not an IF will be available for PLoS One in future? In any case, does someone knowswhether or not an IF will be available for PLoS One in future?

]]> By: thinkevolution.net » Blog Archive » What’s the deal with PLoS One? http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-119 thinkevolution.net » Blog Archive » What’s the deal with PLoS One? Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:35:21 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-119 [...] which solicit papers, or journals that accept communicated work, and maybe that system is a little bit broken anyway. Secondly, there is the whole “no paper too small” policy at PLoS One. As the [...] [...] which solicit papers, or journals that accept communicated work, and maybe that system is a little bit broken anyway. Secondly, there is the whole “no paper too small” policy at PLoS One. As the [...]

]]> By: KFIR OVED http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-122 KFIR OVED Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:57:17 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-122 Hi scientists, "Peer review" like its name is peer review. The high impact journals do not give you a real chance in case you or your mentor are not a well known. The populism in these journals makes me sick and lately I find less and less good and original papers in them. The "not in the focus of the general reader" claim have become a way to reject many papers that are not provocative enough or bring massages that are not dogmatic. In this sense I think Plos One will be better for us the scientists (in particular the young and flexible) to judge the originality and impact of a paper. I believe this is the real peer review... Hi scientists,

“Peer review” like its name is peer review. The high impact journals do not give you a real chance in case you or your mentor are not a well known. The populism in these journals makes me sick and lately I find less and less good and original papers in them. The “not in the focus of the general reader” claim have become a way to reject many papers that are not provocative enough or bring massages that are not dogmatic. In this sense I think Plos One will be better for us the scientists (in particular the young and flexible) to judge the originality and impact of a paper. I believe this is the real peer review…

]]> By: luke http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=19&cpage=1#comment-124 luke Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:21:20 +0000 http://bpr3.org/?p=17#comment-124 (Where 'meritous' = meritorious) :) (Where ‘meritous’ = meritorious)
:)

]]>