Updates to PLOS retrospective health database editorial policy

All PLOS journals place a premium on scientific rigor and editorial integrity. We publish research that complies with the highest technical and ethical standards, and makes a meaningful contribution to our shared knowledge. To ensure that we achieve these priorities against an ever-changing publishing landscape, we work closely with our communities to develop and adapt our editorial standards, implementing new checks and workflows as needed to centre editorial excellence. 

As part of this work, we recently updated the standards against which we evaluate research using publicly available health and social science databases. When conducted rigorously, these studies are important for understanding prevalence and generating hypotheses for future projects. However, the datasets can also be misused for research that lacks a legitimate research question and does not make a contribution to the literature. Data dredging and “salami slicing” – whereby studies with closely related research questions, methods and/or results are divided into separate manuscripts to boost publication output – are particular concerns with these studies. 

To address these concerns, journal teams are working in concert with Academic Editors to ensure that all submissions meet common standards around the research question and the age of the dataset. In addition, per our long-standing guidelines, authors who wish to publish their observational studies in any PLOS journal should submit a STROBE checklist alongside their manuscript. 

Thank you for being part of the PLOS community and supporting our efforts to publish research that is robust, reliable and accessible to all.