When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

PLOS BLOGS The Official PLOS Blog

We Couldn’t Do It without YOU

Every year, we get to work with new authors, reviewers, and editors who are ushering in the next wave of scientific advancement. We love publishing your work, reading your reviews, and learning from your expertise and we just want to say THANK YOU for supporting PLOS.

Wow, did we really do all of that?

We did! This has been a banner year for PLOS journals. In 2018 we saw more research articles published in PLOS Biology than ever before, began publishing Topic Pages in PLOS Genetics and Benchmarking articles in PLOS Computational Biology, partnered with bioRxiv to post over 1,300 preprints, and committed to moving forward with published and signed peer review. That’s on top of all of the special issues, Calls for Papers, and collections we’ve published in topics ranging from Climate Change and Health to Gender and NTDs.

We’d also like to extend a warm welcome to more than 3,000 new members of the PLOS ONE Editorial Board who have joined us this year to provide more expertise for submission areas that need it most – we’re glad you’re here!

For everything we do at PLOS, we are supported by the dedication of our research communities.

Together, we’re stronger

We are a community of more than 11,000 editors, 65,000 reviewers, and 150,000 authors. When we work together, we can make change happen in scholarly communication. Last year PLOS Pathogens editors hosted six writing workshops to help Early Career Researchers improve their skills and equip them with the tools they need to become authors. We also hosted interactive events like live-streamed preprint journal clubs to bring authors and experts from the community together for real-time feedback on their work.

We’re listening to your feedback from our surveys, event meetups, and Section Calls and want to continue evolving our services in ways that matter to you.

We’re working on new ways for reviewers to get credit for their work through ORCiD as well as signed and published peer reviews. We’re also going to continue the process improvements we’ve started on PLOS ONE to bring a faster, clearer process to our authors along with a number of exciting new options on other journals – stay tuned!

Cite it, share it, celebrate it

For everyone who has contributed to our success this year: our dedicated Editorial Board, incredible Guest Editors, and inspiring reviewers – these articles are for you!

We’re sure we will have many more opportunities to thank you this year but please join us in celebrating your achievements this week by sharing your PLOS contributions with #PLOSCommunity.

Discussion
  1. Thanks for taking the ime to write and thanks us. While I am more than happy to serve as a reviewer I must tell I was really disappointed as author. Not in terms of result but in terms of reviewers performance. Of 4 reviewers, 2 clearly did not follow any of the PLOS strict guidelines. Moreover, 1 did not even give any revision and asked for human experiments for an in vivo (it was written also in the title) work. No comments about the manuscript which should have been the focus. I wrote to the editor to complain (NOT to be given another opportunity, as I clearly stated) and was treated as a whining child. I will continue to help as a reviewer because I believe in PLOS philosophy, but will never ever send another manuscript

  2. Thank you for your feedback, and on behalf of PLOS ONE I am truly sorry that you had a negative experience with your submission. While we do see some variability in how referees perform peer reviews – and hence differences in the quality and depth of feedback provided in decision letters – we strive to ensure that PLOS ONE submissions receive high quality peer review including a rigorous, objective, and fair assessment of their work. In cases such as this where one or more reviewer does not provide adequate or appropriate feedback we expect that the handling Academic Editor would consider only those comments that align with the journal’s publication criteria in making a decision, and that they should invite additional referees as needed to round out the assessment.

    When authors have concerns about the peer review process or a decision that has been issued, we invite them to raise these issues to the journal office so that we can follow-up accordingly. In this case, we appreciate that you attempted to do this and I am sorry that your message did not receive a more substantive response. We are looking into the issues raised in this case – both with regard to your manuscript’s peer review and decision and the manner in which your inquiry email was handled – and will follow up with you personally by email.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Add your ORCID here. (e.g. 0000-0002-7299-680X)

Back to top