Home  ›  How Long Does the Review Process Take at Plos Biology

How Long Does the Review Process Take at Plos Biology

Written By Thursday, April 21, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Peer-reviewed open access scientific journal

Academic journal

PLOS Ane
PLOS ONE logo 2012.svg
Subject field Multidisciplinary
Language English
Edited past Emily Chenette
Publication details
History 2006–present
Publisher

Public Library of Science
Frequency Upon credence

Open access

Aye
License Artistic Commons Attribution License 4.0 International

Bear upon factor

3.240 (2020)
Standard abbreviations
ISO four (alt)· Bluebook (alt1· alt2)
NLM (alt)· MathSciNet (alt Paid subscription required)
ISO 4 PLOS Ane
Indexing
CODEN· JSTOR (alt)· LCCN (alt)
MIAR· NLM (alt)· Scopus
ISSN 1932-6203
LCCN 2006214532
OCLC no. 228234657
Links
  • Journal homepage

PLOS One (stylized PLOS I , and formerly PLoS 1) is a peer-reviewed open access scientific periodical published by the Public Library of Scientific discipline (PLOS) since 2006. The periodical covers primary inquiry from any subject area inside science and medicine. The Public Library of Science began in 2000 with an online petition initiative by Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus, formerly manager of the National Institutes of Health and at that time director of Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Patrick O. Brown, a biochemist at Stanford Academy; and Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Submissions are discipline to an article processing charge, and according to the periodical, papers are non to be excluded on the ground of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. All submissions become through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. In January 2010, the journal was included in the Journal Citation Reports and received its first affect gene of 4.411. PLOS Ane papers are published under Creative Commons licenses.

History [edit]

Evolution [edit]

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded PLOS a $9 1000000 grant in December 2002 and $1 1000000 grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new gratuitous-access biomedical journals.[1] [2] Later, PLOS I was launched in Dec 2006 equally a beta version named PLOS One. It launched with commenting and note-making functionality, and added the ability to rate manufactures in July 2007. In September 2007, the ability to get out "trackbacks" on articles was added.[3] In August 2008, the journal moved from a weekly to a daily publication schedule, publishing articles equally soon as they became ready.[four] PLOS One came out of "beta" in October 2008.

In September 2009, equally part of its commodity-level metrics program, PLOS One made its total online usage data, including HTML page views and PDF or XML download statistics, publicly available for every published article. In mid-2012, as office of a rebranding of PLoS every bit PLOS, the journal inverse its name to PLOS Ane.[5]

Output and turnaround [edit]

Year Papers Published
2007 1,200[6]
2008 ii,800[half dozen]
2009 4,406[seven]
2010 half-dozen,749[7]
2011 13,798[viii]
2012 23,468[ix]
2013 31,500[10]
2014 30,040[11]
2015 28,107[12]
2016 22,054[13]
2017 21,185[14]
2018 xviii,859[14]
2019 16,318[14]

The number of papers published by PLOS One grew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat. By 2010, it was estimated to take become the largest journal in the world,[7] and in 2011, 1 in 60 articles indexed by PubMed were published by PLOS 1.[15] By September 2017, PLOS One confirmed they had published over 200,000 articles.[16] By November 2017, the journal Scientific Reports overtook PLOS One in terms of output.[17] [18]

At PLOS One, the median review time has grown from 37 days to 125 days over the kickoff ten years of operation, according to Himmelstein's analysis, done for Nature. The median between acceptance and posting a paper on the site has decreased from 35 to 15 days over the aforementioned period. Both numbers for 2016 roughly correspond to the industry-wide averages for biology-related journals.[xix] [xx]

Management [edit]

The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge.[21] He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012.[22] Damian Pattinson and so held the master editorial position until December 2015.[23] Joerg Heber was equally editor-in-chief from November 2016[24] earlier Emily Chenette took over in that position in March 2021.[25]

Publication concept [edit]

PLOS 1 is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not employ the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead, PLOS Ane merely verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment.[26]

Each submission will be assessed by a fellow member of the PLOS One Editorial Board earlier publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Lath and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees. If published, papers will be made available for customs-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating.[27]

According to Nature, the journal'due south aim is to "challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors".[28] Existence an online-only publication allows PLOS I to publish more papers than a impress journal. In an effort to facilitate publication of research on topics exterior, or between, traditional scientific discipline categories, it does not restrict itself to a specific scientific area.[26]

Papers published in PLOS One tin can be of any length, contain total color throughout, and comprise supplementary materials such as multimedia files. Reuse of articles is field of study to a Artistic Commons Attribution License. In the start four years following launch, it made employ of over twoscore,000 external peer reviewers.[29] The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics treatment submissions and publishes approximately 50 % of all submissions, after review past, on boilerplate, 2.9 experts.[30] Registered readers can leave comments on articles on the website.[28]

Business model [edit]

As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, open admission to PLOS I is financed by an article processing charge, typically paid by the writer's institution or by the author. This model allows PLOS journals to make all articles available to the public for free immediately upon publication. As of Apr 2021, PLOS One charges a publication fee of $1,745 to publish an article.[33] Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce the fee for authors who do not take sufficient funds.[33]

PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the outset time in 2010,[34] largely due to the growth of PLOS One. The success of PLOS One inspired a series of other open access journals,[35] including some that have been criticized every bit "megajournals" having broad scope, low selectivity, and a pay-to-publish model using Creative Commons licenses.[36] [37]

Reception [edit]

In September 2009, PLOS One received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers.[38] The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative arroyo to any aspect of publication every bit adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the customs and long-term prospects". In January 2010, information technology was appear that the journal would be included in the Periodical Citation Reports,[39] and the journal received an impact factor of four.411 in 2010. According to the Journal Commendation Reports, the journal has a 2020 impact factor of three.240.[twoscore]

Abstracting and indexing [edit]

The articles are indexed in:[27]

  • AGRICOLA
  • BIOSIS Previews
  • Chemical Abstracts Service
  • EMBASE
  • Food Science and Engineering Abstracts
  • GeoRef
  • MEDLINE/PubMed/Index Medicus
  • Science Citation Alphabetize Expanded
  • Scopus
  • The Zoological Tape

Response to controversial publications [edit]

Alleged sexism in one peer review case [edit]

On April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at the University of Sussex and Australian National University respectively, posted a rejection letter, which they said was sent to them by a peer reviewer for a journal they did not wish to name. The rejection letter concerned Ingleby and Head's paper about differences in PH.D.-to-postdoc transition between male and female scientists. The reviewer argued that the authors should "find 1 or 2 male biologists to piece of work with" to ensure the manuscript doesn't drift into "ideologically biased assumptions", comments which the authors found to be "unprofessional and inappropriate" and veering into sexism. Shortly later on, the journal was reported to be PLOS One. Past May 1, PLOS announced that it was severing ties with the reviewer responsible for the comments and asking the editor who relayed them to stride downward. PLOS Ane also issued an apology statement following the incident.[41]

CreatorGate [edit]

On March three, 2016, the editors of PLOS I initiated a reevaluation of an article virtually the functioning of the homo hand[42] due to outrage amidst the journal's readership over a reference to "Creator" inside the paper.[43] The authors, who received grants from the Chinese National Basic Research Program and National Natural Scientific discipline Foundation of China for this work, responded by saying "Creator" is a poorly-translated idiom (造化(者), literally "(that which) creates or transforms")[44] which means "nature" in the Chinese language. Despite the authors' protests, the article was retracted.[45] A less sympathetic caption for the use of "Creator" was suggested to The Chronicle of Higher Instruction by Chinese-language experts who noted that the academic editor listed on the paper, Renzhi Han, previously worked at the Chinese Evangelical Church building in Iowa Metropolis.[46]

Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Mail presented a detailed assay of the problem, which she named #CreatorGate, and concluded that the journal's hasty retraction may have been an even bigger crime than the publication of the paper in the first place.[47] To dissimilarity PLOS One 'south handling of the problem, she used a 12-yr history of retraction of the fraudulent paper on vaccine and autism past The Lancet and the lack of a retraction of a debunked study on "arsenic life" by Science.[48] [49] Others added the history of the article in Nature on "water retention" that was not retracted either.[fifty]

Jonathan Eisen, chair of the advisory board of a sister journal PLOS Biological science and an advocate for open up-access, commended PLOS 1 for their prompt response on social media, which in his words "nigh journals pretend doesn't even exist".[51] David Knutson issued a statement about the newspaper processing at PLOS Ane, which praised the importance of post-publication peer review and described their intention to offering open up signed reviews in club to ensure accountability of the procedure.[52] From March 2 to 9, the inquiry commodity received a total of 67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS One site.[42] Signe Dean of SBS put #CreatorGate in perspective: it is not the most scandalous retraction in science, yet information technology shows how a social media outrage storm does expedite a retraction.[53]

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy [edit]

On August 27, 2018, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article published two weeks before past Brown Academy School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman.[54] The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or "cluster outbreaks" in gender dysphoria among immature people, which Littman called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria".[55] Information was obtained from a survey placed on three websites for concerned parents of children with gender dysphoria, asking for responses from parents whose children had experienced "sudden or rapid evolution of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21".[56] The written report was criticized by transgender activists like Julia Serano and medical professionals similar developmental and clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft, every bit being politicized and having self-selected samples, also as defective clinical data or responses from the adolescents themselves.[57] [58]

On March nineteen, 2019, PLOS One completed its review. Reviewer Angelo Brandelli Costa criticized the methods and conclusion of the written report in a formal comment, proverb, "The level of evidence produced by the Dr. Littman's report cannot generate a new diagnostic criterion relative to the time of presentation of the demands of medical and social gender affidavit."[59] In a separate letter apologizing for the failure of peer review to address the bug with the article, PLOS Ane Editor-in-master Joerg Heber said, "we have reached the determination that the report and resultant data reported in the article stand for a valid contribution to the scientific literature. Nonetheless, we have likewise determined that the study, including its goals, methodology, and conclusions, were not adequately framed in the published version, and that these needed to be corrected."[60]

The paper was republished with updated Championship, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Give-and-take, and Decision sections, but the Results section was mostly unchanged. In her correction, Littman emphasized that the commodity was "a study of parental observations which serves to develop hypotheses", saying "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental wellness diagnosis at this fourth dimension. This study did not collect data from the adolescents and young adults (AYAs) or clinicians and therefore does not validate the miracle. Additional enquiry that includes AYAs, along with consensus amidst experts in the field, will be needed to determine if what is described here equally rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) will go a formal diagnosis."[61]

References [edit]

  1. ^ "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Archived from the original on March 2, 2007. Retrieved Dec 17, 2002.
  2. ^ "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Archived from the original on 2007-02-25.
  3. ^ Zivkovic, Bora. "Trackbacks are here!". Archived from the original on 2010-10-xi. Retrieved 2015-03-xv .
  4. ^ "PLOS ONE Milestones". dipity. Jan 6, 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-01-06. , a timeline on Dipity
  5. ^ David Knutson (23 July 2012). "New PLOS expect". PLOS Web log. Public Library of Science. Archived from the original on 6 Baronial 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2012.
  6. ^ a b Kaiser, Jocelyn (June four, 2014). "Output Drops at World's Largest Open Access Journal". Science . Retrieved 2015-ten-26 .
  7. ^ a b c Morrison, Heather (Jan 5, 2011). "PLoS Ane: now the earth's largest journal?". Poetic Economic science Web log . Retrieved 2011-01-16 .
  8. ^ Taylor, Mike (February 21, 2012). "It'south Non Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Advice". Discover Magazine . Retrieved 2012-03-03 .
  9. ^ Hoff, Krista (January 3, 2013). "PLOS ONE Papers of 2012". everyONE Web log . Retrieved 2013-05-21 .
  10. ^ Kayla Graham (January 6, 2014). "Thanking Our Peer Reviewers – EveryONEEveryONE". Blogs.plos.org. Retrieved 2015-05-17 .
  11. ^ "PLoS One Impact Cistron|2016|2015|2014 - BioxBio". world wide web.bioxbio.com . Retrieved 2016-10-17 .
  12. ^ Davis, Phil (February 2, 2016). "As PLOS ONE Shrinks, 2015 Impact Cistron Expected to Rise". The Scholarly Kitchen . Retrieved 2016-10-17 .
  13. ^ Davis, Phil (January v, 2017). "PLOS ONE Output Drops Once again In 2016". The Scholarly Kitchen . Retrieved 2017-01-05 .
  14. ^ a b c Petrou, Christos (May 7, 2020). "The Megajournal Lifecycle". The Scholarly Kitchen . Retrieved 2021-01-02 .
  15. ^ Konkeil, Stacey (December xx, 2011). "PLOS ONE: Five Years, Many Milestones". everyone Blog . Retrieved 2011-12-24 .
  16. ^ "A Publishing Milestone to Celebrate: 200,000 PLOS Research Articles and Counting | STM Publishing News". www.stm-publishing.com . Retrieved 2017-09-27 .
  17. ^ "Scientific Reports Overtakes PLOS One As Largest Megajournal - The Scholarly Kitchen". The Scholarly Kitchen. April 6, 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-27 .
  18. ^ "PLOS Reports $one.7M Loss In 2016 - The Scholarly Kitchen". The Scholarly Kitchen. Nov 27, 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-27 .
  19. ^ Kendall, Powell (February 11, 2016). "Does it accept likewise long to publish research?" (PDF). Nature. 530 (7589): 148–151. Bibcode:2016Natur.530..148P. doi:ten.1038/530148a. PMID 26863966. S2CID 1013588. Retrieved 2016-03-10 .
  20. ^ Himmelstein, Daniel (Feb 10, 2016). "The history of publishing delays". Satoshi Village . Retrieved 2016-03-ten .
  21. ^ Poynder, Richard (June fifteen, 2006). "Open up Admission: Stage 2". Open and Shut Blog . Retrieved 2011-03-27 .
  22. ^ Jerram, Peter (May 8, 2012). "Publisher of PLOS 1 moves to new Open-Admission initiative". The official PLOS Blog . Retrieved 2012-06-22 .
  23. ^ "Research Foursquare hires Damian Pattinson, erstwhile Editorial Director of PLOS I | STM Publishing News". www.stm-publishing.com . Retrieved 2016-09-17 .
  24. ^ "PLOS appoints Dr. Joerg Heber Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE | The Official PLOS Blog". September sixteen, 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-17 .
  25. ^ "A New Editor-in-Master for PLOS One/ | The Official PLOS Blog". March 11, 2021. Retrieved 2021-05-18 .
  26. ^ a b MacCallum, C. J. (2006). "Ane for All: The Next Stride for PLOS". PLOS Biol. four (xi): e401. doi:x.1371/journal.pbio.0040401. PMC1637059. PMID 17523266.
  27. ^ a b PLOS ONE Journal Information. Plosone.org (September 4, 2012). Retrieved on 2013-06-20.
  28. ^ a b Giles, J. (2007). "Open-Access Journal Will Publish Offset, Judge Later". Nature. 445 (7123): 9. Bibcode:2007Natur.445....9G. doi:10.1038/445009a. PMID 17203032.
  29. ^ "Thanking PLOS ONE Peer Reviewers". PLOS ONE. December 2010. Retrieved 2011-01-16 .
  30. ^ "PLOS Ane Editorial and Peer-Review Process". PLOS ONE. 2008. Archived from the original on 2012-04-21. Retrieved 2013-12-12 .
  31. ^ Allen, Liz (Jan 19, 2011). "Welcome, Nature. Seriously". Archived from the original on 2012-01-15.
  32. ^ Welcome, IBM. Seriously (from Apple tree in 1981) on Flickr. August 21, 1981.
  33. ^ a b "Publication Fees". PLOS. Archived from the original on 2021-04-29. Retrieved 2021-04-30 .
  34. ^ Peter Jerram (July 20, 2011). "2010 PLoS Progress Update". Archived from the original on January 16, 2012. Retrieved January 16, 2012.
  35. ^ Sitek, Dagmar; Bertelmann, Roland (2014). "Open Access: A Land of the Fine art". In Sönke Bartling; Sascha Friesike (eds.). Opening Science. Springer. p. 139. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9. ISBN978-3-319-00025-1.
  36. ^ Rhodri Jackson and Martin Richardson, "Golden open admission: the future of the academic journal?", Chapter ix in Cope and Phillip (2014), pp. 223–248. The Future of the Academic Periodical, 2nd ed., Chandos Publishing, July 1, 2014, 478 pages.
  37. ^ Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon, Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges Archived June 2, 2014, at the Wayback Car, March 2014, 69 pages. Terminal Report to a consortium of research funders comprising Jisc, Research Libraries UK, Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Scientific discipline Fund, the Luxembourg National Research Fund, and the Max Planck Plant for Gravitational Physics.
  38. ^ "ALPSP Awards 2010–finalists appear". ALPSP. Archived from the original on 11 December 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
  39. ^ Patterson, Mark (Jan five, 2010). "PLOS Ane indexed by Web of Science". PLOS Blogs . Retrieved 2010-09-09 .
  40. ^ "PLOS One". 2020 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Clarivate. 2021-06-xxx.
  41. ^ Bernstein, Rachel (May 1, 2015). "PLOS One ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm". Science . Retrieved 2015-10-27 .
  42. ^ a b Liu, Ming-Jin; Xiong, Cai-Hua; Xiong, Le; Huang, Xiao-Lin (January 5, 2016). "Biomechanical Characteristics of Mitt Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. eleven (ane): e0146193. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1146193L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146193. PMC4701170. PMID 26730579. (Retracted, come across doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151685)
  43. ^ Davis, Nicola (March seven, 2016). "Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted later on furore". The Guardian . Retrieved 2016-03-09 .
  44. ^ Mair, Victor (March 4, 2016). "The mitt of god". Language Log . Retrieved 2016-03-x .
  45. ^ The PLOS One Staff (March 4, 2016). "Retraction: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS Ane. 11 (3): e0151685. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1151685.. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151685. PMC4778690. PMID 26943177.
  46. ^ Basken, Paul (March 7, 2016). "Newspaper Praising 'Creator' Puts Fear of God in Open-Access Giant". The Relate of Higher Didactics . Retrieved 2016-03-09 .
  47. ^ Kaplan, Sarah (March viii, 2016). "#CreatorGate: How a study on hands sparked an uproar about scientific discipline, God and ethics in publishing". The Washington Mail . Retrieved 2016-03-09 .
  48. ^ Wakefield, AJ; Murch, SH; Anthony, A; Linnell, J; Casson, DM; Malik, G; Berelowitz, One thousand; Dhillon, AP; Thomson, MA; Harvey, P; Valentine, A; Davies, SE; Walker-Smith, JA (1998). "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children". The Lancet. 351 (9103): 637–641. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID 9500320. S2CID 439791. Retrieved 2016-03-09 . (Retracted)
  49. ^ Wolfe-Simon, Felisa; Blum, Jodi Switzer; Kulp, Thomas R.; Gordon, Gwyneth Due west.; Hoeft, Shelley East.; Pett-Ridge, Jennifer; Stolz, John F.; Webb, Samuel Chiliad.; Weber, Peter K.; Davies, P. C. W.; Anbar, A. D.; Oremland, R. S. (December ii, 2010). "A bacterium that tin can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus". Science. 332 (6034): 1163–1166. Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1163W. doi:ten.1126/scientific discipline.1197258. PMID 21127214.
  50. ^ Cressey, Daniel (March 10, 2016). "Paper that says human being mitt was 'designed by Creator' sparks business concern. Obviously creationist inquiry prompts soul searching over process of editing and peer review" (PDF). Nature. 531 (7593): 143. Bibcode:2016Natur.531..143C. doi:10.1038/531143f. S2CID 4469173. Retrieved 2016-03-x .
  51. ^ Kotack, Madison (March 3, 2016). "A Scientific discipline Periodical Invokes 'the Creator,' and Scientific discipline Pushes Back". Wired . Retrieved 2016-03-09 .
  52. ^ Schneider, Leonid (March 4, 2016). "Hand of God newspaper retracted: PLOS 1 "could not stand by the pre-publication cess"". For Better Scientific discipline. Retrieved 2016-03-09 .
  53. ^ Dean, Signe (March 7, 2016). "Not just #creatorgate: Nearly scandalous retractions in scientific discipline". SBS. Retrieved 2016-03-09 .
  54. ^ Littman, Lisa (August 27, 2018). "Statement past PLOS ONE staff". PLOS One. xiii (viii): e0202330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330. PMC6095578. PMID 30114286.
  55. ^ Littman, Lisa (Baronial 16, 2018). "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports". PLOS ONE. 13 (8): e0202330. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1302330L. doi:10.1371/periodical.pone.0214157.s001.
  56. ^ "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria: New study recruiting parents". July 2, 2016. Archived from the original on 2018-03-09. Retrieved 2019-03-21 .
  57. ^ "Why are so many teenage girls actualization in gender clinics?". The Economist. September ane, 2018. Retrieved 2019-03-21 .
  58. ^ Serano, Julia (August 22, 2018). "Everything You lot Need to Know Almost Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria". Medium. Retrieved 2019-03-21 .
  59. ^ Costa, Angello Brandelli (March 19, 2019). "Formal comment on: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to testify signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria". PLOS 1. xiv (3): e0212578. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1412578B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212578. PMC6424477. PMID 30889187.
  60. ^ Heber, Joerg (March 19, 2019). "Correcting the scientific record on gender incongruence – and an apology". PLOS I. Retrieved 2019-03-21 .
  61. ^ Littman, Lisa (August 16, 2018). "Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to prove signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria". PLOS I. 13 (eight): e0202330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330. PMC6095578. PMID 30114286.

External links [edit]

  • Official website

griffithnich1942.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLOS_One

0 Response to "How Long Does the Review Process Take at Plos Biology"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel