Latest journal ranking in the biological sciences

Take a look at this picture:

i-526997dbffd72e4f4e055d9a6e78cbcb-PLoSONEonMendeley.jpg

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....

More like this

Why is the letter P the most useful for alliterative titles? But back to the substance. One thing that bugged me for a long time is that I often see on blogs or hear in person a sentiment that "there are no comments on PLoS ONE". Yet I spend quite some time every week opening and reading all the…
Over at Tor.com, Jo Walton is surprised that people skim over boring bits of novels. While she explicitly excludes non-fiction from her discussion, this immediately made me think of Timothy Burke's How to Read in College, which offers tips to prospective humanities and social science majors on how…
The gold standard for measuring the impact of a scientific paper is counting the number of other papers that cite that paper. However, due to the drawn-out nature of the scientific publication process, there is a lag of at least a year or so after a paper is published before citations to it even…
Over the last few decades, there has been a veritable explosion in the quantity of scientific journals and published papers. It's a veritable avalanche. Some of the reason for this is simply the increase in the number of scientific researchers that has occurred over the last few decades. Another…

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.

By Portofinoan (not verified) on 28 Mar 2009 #permalink