|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PLOS article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Followup to the anonymous contributor who claimed that PLoS Biology journal articles were only available PDF. Both HTML full text and PDF are available, for example, for the article:
Lee AI, Fugmann SD, Cowell LG, Ptaszek LM, Kelsoe G, et al. (2003) A Functional Analysis of the Spacer of V(D)J Recombination Signal Sequences. PLoS Biol 1(1): e1 DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000001.
- PDF: http://www.plosbiology.org/archive/1545-7885/1/1/pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0000020-L.pdf
- HTML: http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0000020
What does "focused instead on allowing authors to self-archive their original submission" mean? Is is not clear from the context. Thanks, GChriss 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any discussion of whether or not this is truly open access. Charging $2900 to publish seems very restrictive. It doesn't cost me anything to publish in a traditional journal. Also, charging to publish could compromise the science, for example, the grant sponsor may not pay to publish an article with which they do not agree; traditional grants may include restrictions of data use up front, but do not require a request for money to publish after a paper has been written. Or, does open access only refer to reading an article. I don't find much restriction to access for readers anymore. You can find links to most articles through Google Scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Open access does indeed only refer to reading publications, not getting them published. Google Scholar will not help you get free access to most published research. Rl (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
PLoS in wikipedia
- Note that this requires the source of the maerial to be specified. DGG 05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The Reference List
The Reference List is absurd and not appropriate. WP is not a bibliography--or a webography. Perhaps whoever added them will select those that are most important and remove the others. DGG 05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is true -- what is needed are succinct references with an in-text numbering scheme. I'll help. GChriss <always listening><c> 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions from PLoS staff
Hello, my name is Liz Allen, I am director of Marketing and Communications at PLoS, firstname.lastname@example.org. We were reading our entry and are happy with it for the most part but there are a couple of places where the existing wording may cause confusion or is now outdated. I've put notes against the two items below to explain what I mean, please let me know what you think. Best, Liz
1."One has since been discontinued". This may cause confusion for two reasons. a. We have a journal that is thriving called PLoS ONE and we wouldn't want folks to think that it had been discontinued. b. I think this statement refers to PLoS Clinical Trials, which was a stand alone journal which we then merged with PLoS ONE and converted into the PLoS Hub for Clinical Trials. It would be truer to say "As of May 2009, PLoS published 7 journals, all peer-reviewed, one PLoS Hub (open access content on Clinical Trials) and one section of PLoS Currents (expertly moderated Influenza research in progress)".
2."PLoS still relies heavily on donations from foundations to cover the majority of its operating costs". Our 2009 Progress Update published today http://www.plos.org/downloads/progress_update_lo.pdf shows that we are following our sustainability strategy and making progress towards achieving our goal of operating profitability in 2010.
These sources could improve the article:
- Cabezas-Clavijo, Álvaro, and Daniel Torres-Salinas. "Indicadores De Uso Y Participación En Las Revistas Científicas 2.0: El Caso De Plos One. (Spanish)." El Profesional De La Información 19.4 (2010): 431-434. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.
- Connor, Elizabeth. "Interview With Harold E. Varmus Of Plos." Journal Of Electronic Resources In Medical Libraries 5.2 (2008): 149-159. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.
- Savage, Caroline J., and Andrew J. Vickers. "Empirical Study Of Data Sharing By Authors Publishing In Plos Journals." PLoS ONE 4.9 (2009): 1-3. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.
I am checking to see if certain aspects about the organization and/or PLoS One's relationship to the mother organization are discussed in these articles. If they are, I will cite and post the information. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The one interview source I am waiting on. The other two do not seem to have what I am looking for. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the author's homepage with her email address. She'll certainly send you the PDF if you contact her. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information! It turns out this morning I was able to get a copy of the article through the Resource Exchange. But this could be very helpful for other people who wish to obtain the article. Anyway, Varmus doesn't talk about staffing or employment in this interview, so it seems like I have not found any sources that discuss these things.
- The interview itself has interesting stuff about the history of PLoS and the fact that Yale University stopped subsidizing page charges for Yale affiliates who intend to publish in BioMed Central publications.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
In regards to that project, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organizations#Scope_and_goals says:
- "The project generally considers articles about any incorporated, registered, or otherwise legitimate organization to be within its scope. The term "organization" is applicable to any active or historical association, society, union, foundation, or corporation as well as any related and notable conferences or events. That said, companies are already covered by WikiProject Business, so the emphasis is more on other types of organization."
Section needed about classifying all this information
A large par of Library Science is made up of classification systems. Without classification amassed knowledge becomes inaccessible
- Are you looking for library science? This article is about an organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Name change from "Public Library of Science" to "PLOS"
I changed the name of this article from Public Library of Science to PLOS. The organization most often and most prominently calls itself PLOS as does everyone else. WP:COMMONNAME. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Someone commented in the page history that this rationale is not compelling - I agree that it is not. It is my personal evaluation that PLOS has ambiguous branding and confuses the name they wish to call themselves, and that usually they use the name "PLOS" rather than Public Library of Science. This is more true lately. I find no clear guidance on what to call them anywhere, but in practice the name PLOS is used much more often. WP:GHITS prove nothing, but as supporting evidence, PLOS returns 17 million hits and "public library of science" returns 4 million. This information is only fit to establish a minimal rationale for asserting that PLOS is the best name, but other interpretations of this information possible. The PLOS hits to the 20th page seem to me to be only about this organization, and not any other plos. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't give a crap, and am not going to argue something that is really a no-brainer, but for the record I would like to state:
- Naming the title of an organization, such as the Public Library of Science to "PLOS" and redirecting inquiries of the name the acronym stands for, which in case it hasn't been thought of, only a person knowing what PLOS means would type that in the search (so the vast majority of searches will inevitable be redirects), is (in my opinion) not sensible. I did see where the organization uses "PLOS" but the Wikipedia article title, as now used, has to add "(for Public Library of Science)". I really do hate explanations like (in agreement that WP:GHITS proves nothing); "returns 17 million hits", or "returns 4 million hits". Even explaining that the figures given are "only fit to establish a minimal rationale" it is paramount to unimaginable in the real world to use these figure for any reason. "If" (I didn't look) there are 20 relevant pages, with a certain number on each page (not hard to count), then a true number of "relevant" hits could be very easily used that would be accurate. Among the "17 million", or even the "4 million" will be such entries or titles (if there is such) as "pussy loose on street" (cat), and likely any other such usage but certainly every known use of the letters PLOS on the internet.
- The most important reason (again to me) for not using "PLOS" (as a title) is that it is an acronym and it just make zero sense to me to name an article title in such a way then redirect all searches to the given name. I have found that reasoning rarely works. Using my reoccurring references to the Lighthouse project's renaming lighthouses to Light (a lighthouse by any other name is still a lighthouse), even those that are historical as being abandoned, with no "light" for 57 years such as the Sabine Pass Lighthouse (note the redirect)), reinforces and proves that logic does not usually matter. Still, I have to make it known, as it is my nature, and who knows? At some point logic may prevail and enough editors may finally wonder why lighthouse articles (hundreds) are being renamed against the common, historically given and never changed, as well as current name, to "light". Anyway, I don't really care, and certainly not intending to be brash, but have to call it like I see it. The following has been a public service announcement against things that don't make sense. Otr500 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)