To boldly grow: five new journals shaped by Open Science – The Official PLOS Blog

“We are extremely excited to announce the imminent launch of five new journals, our first new launches in fourteen years. These new journals are unified in addressing global health and environmental challenges and are rooted in the full values of Open Science:

PLOS Climate
PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
PLOS Water
PLOS Digital Health
PLOS Global Public Health…”

Open Access Agreements with PLOS Biology and SAGE means no Article Processing Charges (APCs) for McMaster Authors | McMaster University Library

“The University Library is pleased to announce that McMaster has signed open access publishing agreements with PLOS Biology and SAGE through the Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN).  As of January 1, 2021, McMaster authors do not have to pay Article Processing Charges to cover the cost of open access publishing in PLOS Biology or in over 900 SAGE Choice journals….”

An interview with protocols.io: CEO Lenny Teytelman on partnering with PLOS – The Official PLOS Blog

“Our ongoing partnership with protocols.io led to a new and exciting PLOS ONE article type, Lab Protocols, which offers a new avenue to share research in-line with the principles of Open Science. This two-part article type gives authors the best of both platforms: protocols.io hosts the step-by-step methodology details while PLOS ONE publishes a companion article that contextualizes the study and orchestrates peer review of the material. The end result is transparent and reproducible research that can help accelerate scientific discovery.

Read our interview with protocols.io CEO and co-founder Dr. Lenny Teytelman where he discusses what triggered the concept for the company, how researchers can benefit from this collaboration and how his team settled on such an adorable racoon logo….”

An interview with protocols.io: CEO Lenny Teytelman on partnering with PLOS – The Official PLOS Blog

“Our ongoing partnership with protocols.io led to a new and exciting PLOS ONE article type, Lab Protocols, which offers a new avenue to share research in-line with the principles of Open Science. This two-part article type gives authors the best of both platforms: protocols.io hosts the step-by-step methodology details while PLOS ONE publishes a companion article that contextualizes the study and orchestrates peer review of the material. The end result is transparent and reproducible research that can help accelerate scientific discovery.

Read our interview with protocols.io CEO and co-founder Dr. Lenny Teytelman where he discusses what triggered the concept for the company, how researchers can benefit from this collaboration and how his team settled on such an adorable racoon logo….”

For Institutions – PLOS

“At PLOS, we believe science should be shared globally, with everyone, regardless of ability to pay to read or publish. We believe APCs are just one part of a mixed-model ecosystem. And we believe partnership in collaboration with research institutions, consortia, funders, and service providers can achieve a truly open to read, open to publish framework for researchers…”

For Institutions – PLOS

“At PLOS, we believe science should be shared globally, with everyone, regardless of ability to pay to read or publish. We believe APCs are just one part of a mixed-model ecosystem. And we believe partnership in collaboration with research institutions, consortia, funders, and service providers can achieve a truly open to read, open to publish framework for researchers…”

Are mega-journals a publication outlet for lower quality research? A bibliometric analysis of Spanish authors in PLOS ONE | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs), which apply a peer-review policy based solely on scientific soundness, elicit opposing views. Sceptical authors believe that OAMJs are simply an easy target to publish uninteresting papers that would not be accepted in more selective traditional journals. The purpose of this paper is to investigate any differences in scholars’ considerations of OAMJs by analysing the productivity and impact of Spanish authors in Biology and Medicine who publish in PLOS ONE.

Design/methodology/approach

Scopus was used to identify the most prolific Spanish authors in Biology and Medicine between 2013 and 2017 and to determine their publication patterns in PLOS ONE. Any differences in terms of citation impact between Spanish authors who publish frequently in PLOS ONE and the global Spanish output in Biology and Medicine were measured.

Findings

Results show a moderate correlation between the total number of articles published by prolific authors in Biology and Medicine and the number of articles they publish in PLOS ONE. Authors who publish frequently in PLOS ONE tend to publish more frequently than average in Quartile 1 and Top 10 per cent impact journals and their articles are more frequently cited than average too, suggesting that they do not submit to PLOS ONE for the purpose of gaining easier publication in a high-impact journal.

Research limitations/implications

The study is limited to one country, one OAMJ and one discipline and does not investigate whether authors select PLOS ONE for what they might regard as their lower quality research.

Originality/value

Very few studies have empirically addressed the implications of the soundness-based peer-review policy applied by OAMJs.

Financial Overview – PLOS

“2019 Highlights (see figures below for a fuller picture)

As of December 31st, 2019, PLOS had net assets of $11.8 million, improved by $1.1 million compared to the previous year’s $10.7 million.
Of the 2019 year-end net assets, cash and unrestricted investments totaled $12.5 million compared to $11.5 million at year-end 2018.
For the year ending December 31st, 2019, PLOS generated total revenues of $31.6 million compared to total revenues of $31.7 million for the year ending December 31st, 2018. 
2019 total expenses of $30.5 million compared with $38 million in 2018.
2019 yielded a net operating surplus of $1.1m compared to a net operating deficit of $6.3m in 2018.
PLOS provided $1.7 million in annual Publication Fee Assistance. …”

Open Response to “Economic impact of UKRI open access policy” report – The Official PLOS Blog

“While we are not setting out to provide an extensive review and analysis of this report, we do want to generally refute the assertion that OA via the UKRI policy is economically damaging, and we’ll provide some references that support this position….

PLOS believes that publishers globally should be leading the efforts to devise and develop the next generation of business models that are able to support their operations in an Open Access context. This will, of course, require deep, and sometimes difficult, work by transitioning publishers. But we strongly believe this work is not outside the acceptable effort level of conscientious members of the scholarly publishing industry that have been aware of Open Access, and its benefits, for at least the last 20 years….

to successfully set up the most efficient,  frictionless Open Access ecosystem, we should leverage the existing budgets and infrastructures of scholarly publishing but with OA as the outcome. This way, Open Access is not viewed as a destructive force, or something external and different that traditional publishers are not part of, but simply as the new way to publish and communicate research that all publishers can facilitate..”