I don't believe that PLoS ONE is effectively peer-reviewed and I view anything published there with instant suspicion. I don't know if PLoS ONE is ever going to be able to overcome this. The journals undergoing regular peer-review are hard-pressed to get qualified reviewers to commit themselves to a quality review in a timely manner, so what hope does PLoS ONE have? My current view is that with PLoS ONE, if you have $1250, you have a published paper.
All manuscripts submitted to PLoS ONE are throughly reviewed. Almost half are rejected. Others often undergo a revision or two or three. How does that differ from any other journal?
Reviewers do not know which of the manuscripts have the fees waived, so money is NEVER a factor.
Where does this suspicion come from, I need to know? Elsevier?
"Q: I think the article has a major problem, but I am afraid to challenge a big name in my field.
Your nervousness is understandable. But, if you believe that you have identified a real problem with the article and you feel confident about it, it is likely that other readers will feel the same. Be the first one to comment about it (try to use non-confrontational language such as 'could' not 'should' etc) and read the responses of others who may agree or disagree with you. On PLoS ONE everyone is equal and everyone is expected to treat others with equal respect. Courage to challenge authorities will gain you a fair reputation among your peers. "
ummmmm, what universe do you live in? In the universe I live in, prior to tenure and about your 6th R01 you'd be bloody insane to "challenge authorities" in the faint hope that you will get a "fair reputation". In the universe I live in, you would at the very least get a reputation as an asshat if you went after some "authority's" paper post-pub in this way. More likely you would also be lucky to get papers published and grants funded, not to mention a tenure nod.
I may have to backtrack a bit after I think this next bit through. But what strikes me right off is that it is the height of irresponsibility to encourage this sort of behavior just to advance your PLOSone mission. I mean these are people's careers here. I don't think anyone except the most well-established types would be foolish enough to stick their neck out like this. But suppose some naive postdoc or jr faculty does piss off the wrong person, spelling the end of a promising career????
To be clear: I endorse the sentiment you express....IN THEORY. It would be great if we lived in the sky castle of purest science where the powers-that-be would appreciate peons criticizing their paper because it represents the purest route to Truth(tm). We most assuredly, in most areas of science with which I am familiar, live in no such sky castle but rather down in the sty of egotistical power struggles.
"Peer-review" means nothing more than Kuhn's "Normal Science." Having trouble getting "qualified" reviewers? I'm sure the poor darlings are overworked, what with having to filter out the unwashed masses.
Dr. Ramachandran's comments "go to any medical meeting and you will have a sense of deja vu...you've seen all this before."
Away from my colleagues, I began publishing "new" science on YouTube. Twelve videos and thousands of hits later word is getting out. I've been really bad though, haven't I.
What universe I live in? Outside the nastiest areas of science, those that are the most competitive and attract the nastiest people, those that attract the most money, fame, pride and media attention, as well as fraud, lies and videotapes (and rock'n'roll). Fortunately, despite the disproportionate attention those areas get, most of science is not like this - all of my own colleagues are collegiate, sharing, gregarious, chatty, generous and nice. And are fine with challenging authority because the authorities themselves do not have extra-large egoes.
Peer review is not perfect, but it effectively keeps out pseudoscientists, quacks and crank, who are then forced to peddle their wares on YouTube and horrendously designed websites.
I volunteer as academic editor on PLoS One. This means I handle the selection of reviewers and the communication with the authors. I can assure you that I'm trying to pick the same sort of reviewers (mostly three, rather than two) as if I were working for Nature.
All PLoS One papers with my name as academic editor on it went through as rigorous a peer-review process as I could possibly get!
This is not the first time I hear this nonsense about lack of peer-review in PLoS One and it has to stop. Given the major influence the editors have at Nature and Science, I may even be willing to venture so far as to say that PLoS One has more of a peer-review than these two journals. Nobody takes PLoS One editors out for dinner (or worse) in order to get published there. :-) But you could try of course :-)
'''
AEs are invited to handle submitted manuscripts based upon the content of the manuscript. The AE evaluates the paper and decides whether it describes a body of work that meets the editorial criteria of PLoS ONE. AEs can employ a variety of methods to reach a decision in which they are confident:
A) Based on their own knowledge and experience
B) Through discussion with other members of the editorial board
C) Through the solicitation of formal reports from independent external referees
'''
Of A, B and C, only C is peer-review.
Almost every other journal (including all the other PLoS journals!), rather than using A) OR B) OR C) uses A) AND B) AND C). The lone major exception, PNAS articles "communicated" by an academy member, went by the wayside as of May 1, 2007 (http://www.pnas.org/misc/iforc.shtml#editorial).
PLoS-1 can set whatever policy it wants, but when major work goes elsewhere for publication and post-publication non-anonymous review fails to happen, it's not useful for PLoS-1 aficionados to claim they and their policies are being misrepresented and misunderstood.
I guess that there is no argument with that, and so there is no hope of making any changes to the way that scientific publishing proceeds. It will have to remain as biased and inefficient as it is because any modifications are just not peer-review. We are "down in the sty of egotistical power struggles" and we are all going to have to learn to like pig-sh*t.
You'll have to forgive me if I take a different view. I take the view that peer review means that the work has been reviewed by the authors peers prior to publication. In PLoS ONE the Academic Editors are the author's peers. Working scientists, with knowledge and experience of the work being reported. They aren't handling papers outside their areas. So if a working scientist knowledgeable in the field covered by a paper reads a paper and is prepared to put their name to the fact that it should be published I believe that IS peer-review. And probably more transparent and accountable peer-review than practiced by traditional journals.
Of course the PLoS ONE Editorial Board only has a little fewer than 400 individuals so they don't know about everything. But if they don't know they can ask and right now they are asking advice from external advisors or referees on about half the papers that are being submitted.
One measure of the existence of peer review on PLoS ONE is that 87% of the papers that are accepted by PLoS ONE have been through at least one round of revision and reconsideration. If you consider the fact that many of the papers submitted have already been through review and revision at other PLoS Journals the percentage of papers published as originally submitted is fewer still.
I could go on for ages here but I won't, suffice it to say that every paper published by PLoS ONE has been expertly assessed and reviewed before publication. Post publication comment and annotation and rating provide a further opportunity for review of papers but this is in addition, not replacing, prepublication review.
If you think that this isn't 'peer-review' that's your prerogative, but you will have to forgive the 395 Academic Editors, 1,700 odd referees and 10,000-ish Authors who have been involved in PLoS ONE in the last year, if they don't agree.
I don't believe that PLoS ONE is effectively peer-reviewed and I view anything published there with instant suspicion. I don't know if PLoS ONE is ever going to be able to overcome this. The journals undergoing regular peer-review are hard-pressed to get qualified reviewers to commit themselves to a quality review in a timely manner, so what hope does PLoS ONE have? My current view is that with PLoS ONE, if you have $1250, you have a published paper.
All manuscripts submitted to PLoS ONE are throughly reviewed. Almost half are rejected. Others often undergo a revision or two or three. How does that differ from any other journal?
Reviewers do not know which of the manuscripts have the fees waived, so money is NEVER a factor.
Where does this suspicion come from, I need to know? Elsevier?
"Q: I think the article has a major problem, but I am afraid to challenge a big name in my field.
Your nervousness is understandable. But, if you believe that you have identified a real problem with the article and you feel confident about it, it is likely that other readers will feel the same. Be the first one to comment about it (try to use non-confrontational language such as 'could' not 'should' etc) and read the responses of others who may agree or disagree with you. On PLoS ONE everyone is equal and everyone is expected to treat others with equal respect. Courage to challenge authorities will gain you a fair reputation among your peers. "
ummmmm, what universe do you live in? In the universe I live in, prior to tenure and about your 6th R01 you'd be bloody insane to "challenge authorities" in the faint hope that you will get a "fair reputation". In the universe I live in, you would at the very least get a reputation as an asshat if you went after some "authority's" paper post-pub in this way. More likely you would also be lucky to get papers published and grants funded, not to mention a tenure nod.
I may have to backtrack a bit after I think this next bit through. But what strikes me right off is that it is the height of irresponsibility to encourage this sort of behavior just to advance your PLOSone mission. I mean these are people's careers here. I don't think anyone except the most well-established types would be foolish enough to stick their neck out like this. But suppose some naive postdoc or jr faculty does piss off the wrong person, spelling the end of a promising career????
To be clear: I endorse the sentiment you express....IN THEORY. It would be great if we lived in the sky castle of purest science where the powers-that-be would appreciate peons criticizing their paper because it represents the purest route to Truth(tm). We most assuredly, in most areas of science with which I am familiar, live in no such sky castle but rather down in the sty of egotistical power struggles.
"Peer-review" means nothing more than Kuhn's "Normal Science." Having trouble getting "qualified" reviewers? I'm sure the poor darlings are overworked, what with having to filter out the unwashed masses.
Dr. Ramachandran's comments "go to any medical meeting and you will have a sense of deja vu...you've seen all this before."
Away from my colleagues, I began publishing "new" science on YouTube. Twelve videos and thousands of hits later word is getting out. I've been really bad though, haven't I.
kb
What universe I live in? Outside the nastiest areas of science, those that are the most competitive and attract the nastiest people, those that attract the most money, fame, pride and media attention, as well as fraud, lies and videotapes (and rock'n'roll). Fortunately, despite the disproportionate attention those areas get, most of science is not like this - all of my own colleagues are collegiate, sharing, gregarious, chatty, generous and nice. And are fine with challenging authority because the authorities themselves do not have extra-large egoes.
Peer review is not perfect, but it effectively keeps out pseudoscientists, quacks and crank, who are then forced to peddle their wares on YouTube and horrendously designed websites.
I volunteer as academic editor on PLoS One. This means I handle the selection of reviewers and the communication with the authors. I can assure you that I'm trying to pick the same sort of reviewers (mostly three, rather than two) as if I were working for Nature.
All PLoS One papers with my name as academic editor on it went through as rigorous a peer-review process as I could possibly get!
This is not the first time I hear this nonsense about lack of peer-review in PLoS One and it has to stop. Given the major influence the editors have at Nature and Science, I may even be willing to venture so far as to say that PLoS One has more of a peer-review than these two journals. Nobody takes PLoS One editors out for dinner (or worse) in order to get published there. :-) But you could try of course :-)
Why don't I believe PLoS-1 is peer-reviewed? The lack of required peer-review is explicit on the PLoS-1 website. To quote (http://www.plosone.org/static/reviewerGuidelines.action):
'''
AEs are invited to handle submitted manuscripts based upon the content of the manuscript. The AE evaluates the paper and decides whether it describes a body of work that meets the editorial criteria of PLoS ONE. AEs can employ a variety of methods to reach a decision in which they are confident:
A) Based on their own knowledge and experience
B) Through discussion with other members of the editorial board
C) Through the solicitation of formal reports from independent external referees
'''
Of A, B and C, only C is peer-review.
Almost every other journal (including all the other PLoS journals!), rather than using A) OR B) OR C) uses A) AND B) AND C). The lone major exception, PNAS articles "communicated" by an academy member, went by the wayside as of May 1, 2007 (http://www.pnas.org/misc/iforc.shtml#editorial).
PLoS-1 can set whatever policy it wants, but when major work goes elsewhere for publication and post-publication non-anonymous review fails to happen, it's not useful for PLoS-1 aficionados to claim they and their policies are being misrepresented and misunderstood.
I guess that there is no argument with that, and so there is no hope of making any changes to the way that scientific publishing proceeds. It will have to remain as biased and inefficient as it is because any modifications are just not peer-review. We are "down in the sty of egotistical power struggles" and we are all going to have to learn to like pig-sh*t.
You'll have to forgive me if I take a different view. I take the view that peer review means that the work has been reviewed by the authors peers prior to publication. In PLoS ONE the Academic Editors are the author's peers. Working scientists, with knowledge and experience of the work being reported. They aren't handling papers outside their areas. So if a working scientist knowledgeable in the field covered by a paper reads a paper and is prepared to put their name to the fact that it should be published I believe that IS peer-review. And probably more transparent and accountable peer-review than practiced by traditional journals.
Of course the PLoS ONE Editorial Board only has a little fewer than 400 individuals so they don't know about everything. But if they don't know they can ask and right now they are asking advice from external advisors or referees on about half the papers that are being submitted.
One measure of the existence of peer review on PLoS ONE is that 87% of the papers that are accepted by PLoS ONE have been through at least one round of revision and reconsideration. If you consider the fact that many of the papers submitted have already been through review and revision at other PLoS Journals the percentage of papers published as originally submitted is fewer still.
I could go on for ages here but I won't, suffice it to say that every paper published by PLoS ONE has been expertly assessed and reviewed before publication. Post publication comment and annotation and rating provide a further opportunity for review of papers but this is in addition, not replacing, prepublication review.
If you think that this isn't 'peer-review' that's your prerogative, but you will have to forgive the 395 Academic Editors, 1,700 odd referees and 10,000-ish Authors who have been involved in PLoS ONE in the last year, if they don't agree.