Editorial Access for Contributors: PLoS Expands Options for Publication of Research and Comment The PLoS Medicine Editors

edical researchers—and months ago and has already started be clearly marked as such. However, scientists in general—place to broaden the scope of clinical trials subjective considerations such as Ma high value on their ability reporting by publishing the results “likely impact,” “degree of advance,” to make independent judgments. Yet of randomized clinical trials from all or “interest to a general reader” will the same group often seeks metrics medical and public health disciplines not play a role in deciding whether an to validate their subjective opinions. without regard to the direction of the article should be published. Hence, One could argue that as rationalists, results, a trial’s size, or its “importance.” PLoS ONE will be able to publish a scientists should have little use for Broadening the range of open- much wider range of papers than subjectivity, opinions should be access options further, PLoS has PLoS Medicine, for example, can now supported by verifi able data, and the recently announced the forthcoming accommodate. Editorial decisions will subjective view of a paper’s worth launch of a new and very different be reached rapidly by an extensive should not be a consideration in publishing project. PLoS ONE editorial board, and accepted articles editorial decisions about which papers (http:⁄⁄www.plosone.org) will be will be published (in PDF and fully to publish. In reality, however, given an open-access venue for research tagged XML formats) in as little as two the sheer volume of papers published weeks after acceptance. each day, the subjective value of PLoS And, crucially, published papers will a paper’s “worth” is an accepted We hope that be exposed to post-publication peer criterion in scientifi c publication as ONE will lead the way review. Readers will have the tools no individual could possibly read all towards a new form of to add comments, questions, related papers published in their own fi eld data, and ratings to each article, and without some guidance as to their likely scientifi c discourse. authors will be able to update, clarify, importance. and further discuss their fi ndings. PLoS So, like other journals presented with from every discipline, including all ONE will empower researchers and many objectively sound submissions, areas of medicine and public health, consumers of research to engage in an the editors at PLoS Medicine have and will use the capabilities of the open discussion on published articles. ultimately to make subjective decisions Internet to allow readers to participate The goal is to capture the varied and about which papers we accept. As an directly in the publishing process. extremely valuable assessment of indication of how far we have come in The growing availability of online papers that occurs after publication establishing a “top-tier” open-access tools that allow users to share, fi lter, in a way that is not possible within the medical journal, PLoS Medicine now link, and annotate online information limits of conventional Correspondence has a rejection rate of greater than 80 makes it much easier for readers to or Letters sections. It is our hope that percent. We feel that the unwanted fi nd the information that is of most such post-publication activity will have side-effect of this rejection rate—and interest to them, and to add value to many benefi ts: papers that emerge as the authors of rejected papers would it. By making use of these advances, infl uential for a particular fi eld will agree—is that we are turning away many we hope that PLoS ONE will lead the attract signifi cant annotation and valuable contributions. Some of the way towards a new form of scientifi c comment, benefi ting the authors as papers we reject are clearly not suitable discourse that maintains those well as the readers; discussion will help for a general medical journal, but for elements of conventional journals to link previously unconnected groups others that decision is less clear-cut, that benefi t the scientifi c and medical or even communities of researchers; and most of the submitted manuscripts community but which also embraces free access to this content and contain valuable data, even if they the potential of the Internet to create sometimes fall short of supporting more a more interactive, community-driven ambitious conclusions. literature that invites participation from Citation: The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) Access for contributors: PLoS expands its options for publication As an organization whose vision anyone who has a valuable contribution of research and comment. PLoS Med 3(9): e416. DOI: is a world of scientifi c publishing to make. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030416 where there is an open-access journal Papers published by PLoS ONE will be DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030416 for every paper worth publishing, it held to rigorous standards of scientifi c is essential that PLoS continues to quality. Experts will assess whether Copyright: © 2006 The PLoS Medicine Editors. This create additional open-access venues the results are valid and presented is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, to help reach this goal. Two recent in suffi cient detail to allow critical which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and developments take us closer. evaluation by readers, and whether reproduction in any medium, provided the original PLoS Clinical Trials (http:⁄⁄www. the conclusions are fully supported. author and source are credited. plosclinicaltrials.org) was launched fi ve Speculation is encouraged, but must E-mail: medicine_editors@plos.org

PLoS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org 1441 September 2006 | Volume 3 | Issue 9 | e416 interaction will help to level out some of the publication fee, we will waive added to PLoS Medicine shortly after of the inequalities between researchers or lower it, and editors and reviewers the launch of PLoS ONE later this year. in privileged settings with easy access who make decisions about publication What this means is that although we will to information and those who are less have no knowledge of who can pay.) maintain “subjective” editorial criteria well connected. No doubt, there will be Annotation, on the other hand, carries for PLoS Medicine, this assessment itself some surprises too. no charge; all contributions that are will be open to broader community Like the other PLoS journals, PLoS deemed valuable will be posted rapidly opinion. We are excited that we will be ONE will have publication charges. and are citable. able to accommodate a much larger (The PLoS fee waiver policy applies to PLoS ONE will be our prototype, but number of contributors—authors and PLoS ONE authors just as for our other the open-source software that allows annotators—to all PLoS publications journals: if you cannot pay any or part this level of online interaction will be and invite you to participate.

PLoS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org 1442 September 2006 | Volume 3 | Issue 9 | e416