Take a look at this picture:

It shows the top five journals ordered by the numbers of papers that Mendeley users decided are worth keeping for future reference. The discussion of the meaning of these numbers is here. I sure like that #5 there....
Now on ScienceBlogs: The Galaxy's Biggest Valentine
My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. I am not an MD so I cannot diagnose and treat your sleep problems. As well as writing this blog, I am also the Online Discussion Expert for PLoS. This is a personal blog and opinions within it in no way reflect the policies of PLoS. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com
Buy the 2009 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2008 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:
Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!

« An Innovative Use of Twitter: monitoring fish catch! | Main | Carrboro Citizen - the hyperlocal newspapers are here to stay »
Category: Open Science • PLoS
Posted on: March 23, 2009 11:53 PM, by Coturnix
Take a look at this picture:

It shows the top five journals ordered by the numbers of papers that Mendeley users decided are worth keeping for future reference. The discussion of the meaning of these numbers is here. I sure like that #5 there....
Orac 02.13.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
Tim Lambert 09.12.2011
Orac 01.26.2012
Comments
go open access
Posted by: DNLee | March 24, 2009 8:57 PM
Congratulations on the success of PLoS One!
We're very happy with the response we received from our article published in PLoS One last year.
I can see why the "for-profit" publishers are concerned about the success of the open-access journals.
Posted by: Portofinoan | March 28, 2009 6:34 PM