PLoS ONE Impact Factor

UPDATE: June 21, 2010: At last, PLoS ONE has now been given an impact factor of 4.351, which puts it into the 25th percentile of the “Biology” category.

UPDATE: June 19, 2009: ISI will publish its latest stash of impact factors on the evening of the 19th. We will hopefully find out then whether or not a PLoS ONE impact factor will be made public, and just how well it is rating relative to the traditional journals.

Until recently, online scientific journals were really just e-versions of the printed copy. Of course, we had advance publication online and ToC alerts etc, but now Public Library of Science will publish a general science journal to rival Science and Nature that covers primary research results from all areas of science. Unique to the new format is the use of both pre- and post-publication peer review, which are set to revolutionize the way the scientific literature evolves.

PLoS co-founder Harold Varmus says, “For those of us who have been engaged with PLoS from its conception, the launch of PLoS ONE is tremendously exciting—this is the moment when we seize the full potential of the Internet to make communication of research findings an interactive and fully accessible process that gives greater value to what we do as scientists.”

It has launched with publication of 100 peer-reviewed research articles peer-reviewed under the guidance of an extensive academic editorial board, and covering molecular science and clinical studies with topics including the evolution of language, the control of rabies, mimicry of jumping spiders, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Every article published is under an open access license, which means everyone is free to read, reuse, and build upon these research papers.

One of the key selling points is the possibility of almost instantaneous publication with virtually zero delay between submission and publication. As soon as a paper is published a dialog between author and reader is opened.

PLoS launched in “beta” in December, 2007 could see big changes in the way the scientific literature evolves.

UPDATE: 2009-06-16 Recent headlines added:

12 thoughts on “PLoS ONE Impact Factor”

  1. Plos One finally got it’s impact factor – 4.351 (falls short of the predicted 5-7) but Plosians have emphasised the shortcomings of IF for so long, I presume they won’t actually care…

  2. Yes, maybe there’s some politicotechnical reason for that PLOS ONE has not been assigned a SCI IF in 2008 because the yonger journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases has been assigned one. Fair play?

  3. It hasn’t been listed yet, as far as I know. I guess everyone was hoping it would be, but it’s still a relatively young publication…or maybe there’s some politicotechnical reason…

  4. JCR 2008 has just been released and I cannot find any impact factor for PLoS ONE.

    Does someone knows why?

  5. Journal Impact Factor
    = measure of the citations to science and social science journals

    JIF is regarded as “the science of rating scientists and their research”

    What does JIF have to do with “the science of rating scientists and their research”?

    This is another glaring sad example of the prostituting, by the sience establishment guild of the 20th century Technology Culture, of the terms science, scientist and research.

    I am asked if I have a better suggestion on how to rate scientists and research.

    I do not pretend to have any suggestion on how now to scientifically rate scientists and research.

    The present science establishment is, IMO, widely-deeply cancered with the malignant 20th century Technology Culture, of which public rating is one symptom. Tackling only this one single symptom would be a very difficult task.

    My most probably hopeless approach is to stir the stagnant water and initiate evolutionary changes that would eventually re-place science, scientists and research where Western culture departed from Enlightenment circa 100 years ago, when it dealt with the essence of nature and life evolutions, and elected to become a pierced-ear slave (Ex.21, 6) to the Technology Culture .

    IMO it is vitally important for now charting the course of our society to learn and understand, to analyse and assess, with a scientism perspective, the evolution and collapse of the Technology Culture and the implications, within it, of the bare survival of basic classical science, of the further comprehension of our place and fate in the universe.

    Respectfully suggesting,

    Dov Henis
    (Comments From The 22nd Century)
    Updated Life’s Manifest May 2009
    http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=495&#entry412704

  6. 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.
    But I think PLoS One is far superior to such a journal of IF between 5 and 6.

  7. Dear readers,

    first of all, many congratulations to the authors published in the inaugural issue of PloS One, at least in my opinion, there are several highly exciting papers published.
    Lots of people are highly frustrated by the current way of peer-review. Its too subjective. So, many people have serious problems to get their work published, even when its sound. Only because reviewers may think that the submitted work might not appropriate for the chosen journal- or because they simply have no time for an in-deep review and therefore do not understand the significance of the submitted work.
    PloS One attempts to reduce the subjectivity of this process- and I hope they will be successful. Don’t forget – publishing your work takes tons of time. Of course, dear Johann, when you think, your paper is suitable for Nature or Science, you wouldn’t send it directly to PloS ONE… but, whats with the hundreds of excellent papers published in mid-range journals? For the advancement of particular fields in science, these papers are as important as the papers found in the top-tier journals.

  8. Johann, I’d have to agree, to be honest, it could take a lot longer than a few months to convince working scientists not to publish in the likes of Cell, Science, Nature, PNAS, in preference for the burgeoning numbers of OA journals and their like.

    Check out today’s related announcement on a UK version of PubMed Central, which launches today.

  9. When I heard about Plos ONE, I thought, Yes, that is how scientific publishing should work: I can be quite sure that the papers I see there are technically ok, because they passed peer review, and then there is an open, transparent discussion of the whole community about how important the study actually is, what is missing, which experiments could be done to prove this and that, etc.. (Compare to the procedure in journals like Nature or Science: Anonymous reviewers not only judge the technical quality, but also decide what is important news and what can not appear in the journal, without telling the public what the criteria for this decision are.)
    However, I see the problem that most scientific papers today are so highly specialized that the actual community which might be willing to discuss specific issues of the data at hand is depressingly small. I wonder if the critical mass will be reached to start lively discussions.
    A second concern: Will enough scientists consider PlosOne as the first choice to submit their work? Discussing science can be fun even for those who are not in the “inner circle” of whatever topic if there are exciting/totally novel/ controversial issues to talk about. However, will such work find its way to PLosOne in the long run or will too many PhD students, postdocs and supervisors be afraid that publishing in a format that does not provide an “impact factor” might harm their careers?

    So, in summary, I wish this new way of scientific publishing all the best, but I am a bit sceptical .

  10. David: What a great way to bring the marvels of scientific research and the power of the internet together.
    Congratulations on and continued success with your very interesting blog.
    Happy New Year!
    Wilf

Comments are closed.