PLOS ONE is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
PLOS ONE is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Does the name have anything to do with the internet meme "[+1]"? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
PLoS ONE has changed to PLOS ONE in mid 2012 (says this article), a somewhat simpler writing. I think, therefore every mention in the article should be transfered to "PLOS ..." with capital "O". --Helium4 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the usage in the article should reflect what was current at the time of the event described. I don't think we can say that PLOS ONE did something if it was not called that at that time. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, the fact that the current title is the recommended name in the journal's citations is a strong argument and arguments related to an editor's prediction as to how millions of readers are going to react to one form of a title or another are very week. Mike Cline (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
PLoS ONE → PLoS One — Normal capitalization per WP:TITLEFORMAT. PLoS actually stands for something (PLoS), but One is not an initialism, rather a normal word. In the logo, in fact, the word is capitalized all lower case, "one". This is pointless formatting confusion that should be conformed to normal and easily readable text. ENeville (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously oppose. You're misreading the logo, the journal's official name is PLoS ONE. Just look at any random article and scroll down a bit to where it says "Citation". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll let others assess for themselves what the logo reads. As to "official", please note MOS:TM: follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". ENeville (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not a trademark, it's a name. And the name is written this way all over their website, so matter how you look at the logo (that's just something some artistic marketeer came up with). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
MOS:TM, first sentence: "Trademarks include words and short phrases used by organizations and individuals to identify themselves and their products and services". Also, while trying to avoid engaging in unproductive argument, I would point out that your take on the logo seems to be selective. I would additionally observe that there's no reason not to think that the capitalization "PLoS ONE" is not also the work of a marketeer. ENeville (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It may well be that the name is the product of a marketeer, we don't know, but the logo certainly is. Meanwhile, even the ISO abbreviation is "PLoS ONE", not "PLoS One" (see the NLM database). This means that basically all other scientific journals will cite the journal as ONE, not One. CNN, NYT, and other news outlets use "ONE" when they cite articles from this journal. The current usage therefore is the usage that our readers are much more likely to encounter in real life than the version you're preferring (actually, they are very unlikely to encounter "PLoS One" anywhere). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I am again concerned by the selective application of arguments, noting that you rely upon one characterization of creation by "marketeer" (without support) while dismissing another as speculative. Please observe that cnn.com and nytimes.com show both capitalizations, as do nature.com and sciencemag.org, as well as guardian.co.uk, economist.com, nhs.uk, nih.gov, health.gov.au, and who.int. Thus, in obvious contradiction to your assertion, readers are very likely to encounter "PLoS One". Also, in contrast to your passing characterization, the name is evidently not an abbreviation, which is the undisputed point made back at the beginning. The primary point, of course, is enabling readers to find the information they want from WP quickly and clearly, which we seek to do by, amongst other things, giving them information in an expected format, to which you also referred. What readers don't expect on WP is unnecessary ALL CAPS. "PLoS ONE" begets the idea that "ONE" stands for something, and is unnecessarily distracting and confusing to the uninitiated. By contrast, nobody looking for "PLoS ONE" is confused by finding "PLoS One". WP:MOSCAPS: prefer lower case. "PLoS One" is the accessible, established, and thus rational choice for WP, per WP:TITLEFORMAT, MOS:TM, and WP:MOSCAPS. ENeville (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a sample citation from this journal as rendered automatically by the Wikipedia cite DOI template:
Le Nouën, C.; Toquin, D.; Müller, H.; Raue, R. D.; Kean, K. M.; Langlois, P.; Cherbonnel, M.; Eterradossi, N. (2012). Boudinot, Pierre, ed. "Different Domains of the RNA Polymerase of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Contribute to Virulence". PLoS ONE. 7: e28064. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028064.
Note that it renders the journal as "PLoS ONE". I see that MOS:TM's default advice is to not capitalize the name because it says, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'". However, it also says, "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)" and the style PLoS ONE is in use in at least hundreds if not thousands of references on Wikipedia already, plus it appears this way in many thousands of other articles. With this capitalization system being so widely used, I have to support the spelling PLoS ONE. Blue Rasberry(talk) 21:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What about checking how PLoS ONE recommends to be cited?
Go to an article of your choice and check the "Citation" paragraph just below the abstract. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029639, for instance, states "Core A, Runckel C, Ivers J, Quock C, Siapno T, et al. (2012) A New Threat to Honey Bees, the Parasitic Phorid Fly Apocephalus borealis. PLoS ONE 7(1): e29639. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029639". The journal is always given as "PLoS ONE", because this is its official name. I do not see any reason to have the article about PLoS One reside under a different name. It could make sense, however, to add a brief section on the name in the article. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I would note that no change in name is proposed, nor invented capitalization. For those concerned about "official" names, please note WP:OFFICIALNAMES, although, again, no change in name (or spelling) is being proposed. We're only talking about using an established name and an established capitalization, as a general web search will show, and a fact toward which I already referred. Additionally, even if "PLoS One" were not already in use, capitalizing only the first letter of a title word is standard English, not invented, and to cite the full paragraph from the referenced MOS:TM section:
When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. This practice helps ensure consistency in language and avoids drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others. Listed below are more specific recommendations for frequently occurring nonstandard formats.
and below that:
Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":
avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss
If it's believed that the capitalization is important enough in this case, it can certainly be demonstrated and described in the article, as is done in many other WP articles about subjects with nonstandard "official" capitalization. As even the above post demonstrates in its formatting of the name when used in normal text, "PLoS One" represents the expected instantiation of capitalization for a title of the format [INITIALISM] [Word]. It is this formatting that is the most useful and established for WP. I would also urge editors to consider the broader impacts of the decision here, as supporting an arbitrary use of all caps here will then be cited to argue for their use in more cases, to the broad detriment of WP readability. ENeville (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that OFFICIALNAMES states: "consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". I don't know of a single scientific journal that cites PLoS ONE as PLoS One (logical, because all scientific journals either cite a journal's full name or its ISO abbreviation, which in this case are identical). I don't see the need to change the title of this article at all and I don't see why this would lead to a degradation of WP. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
ENeville, could you comment on "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)" and my assertion that in references Wikipedia already uses the formatting "PLoS ONE" hundreds of times in reference sections? It seems to me that this is an exceptional case because there are few other cases when a name will be legitimately capitalized in an atypical way so extensively throughout Wikipedia. How can this have broad implications when the rationale for the exception is so extraordinary? Why does this seem arbitrary to you when there is already a precedent in hundreds of Wikipedia articles to format the name in this way? Blue Rasberry(talk) 23:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:OFFICIALNAMES is only tangentially relevant, as I said, because no name change is being proposed here, but it does emphasize that no deference to "official" names is presumed for WP, a spirit which would logically extend down to "official" formatting. As to the use of the capitalization "PLoS One" in scientific media, for what it's worth, I suggest a search of nature.com and sciencemag.org, as previously indicated. But again, no name change is being proposed, so WP:OFFICIALNAMES' admonishment about usage is not applicable.
Re "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)", I would first start with the rest of that sentence, "and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), that would mean "each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital." The rationale here for nonstandard formatting is hardly exceptional, amounting to 'it's official' and 'it's frequently used'. The same could be said of most or all of the examples on MOS:DAB or applicable articles, so an exception based on the principles offered here could indeed be argued for in like fashion in all the other cases. Narrowing the factor of usage to only that within WP is artificial, as it's a concept not mentioned in any guidelines, probably because it's self-referential and formatting will tend to follow by default that which initially appeared in WP, regardless of legitimacy. However, for what it's worth, "PLoS One" shows up in WP, as does even "PLoS one", which underscores my original point as to needless confusion. As to whether the use of all caps for "ONE" is arbitrary, I would characterize it that way because there seems to be no logic to the initial choice. If I may turn the question around, why should that word be all caps in the first place? ENeville (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The idea behind the ONE is that it is one journal for all of science (with a new slant on peer review), capitalized to distinguish it from the (classical) discipline-specific PLoS journals (with classical peer review), which are written classically, like PLoS Biology. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
So, the all caps are a stylistic choice to emphasize importance. Please note that this specific reason is referenced by MOS:TM for why their use is contraindicated. MOS:ALLCAPS is quite clear: reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks. "PLoS One" is perfectly functional, in wide use, and is the appropriate format for WP. ENeville (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Today I went through the article, putting every mention of the journal's name into italics. I also fixed it so that the journal name was rendered as PLoS ONE when the article was talking about issues of the journal before mid 2012 (when that was the name), and PLOS ONE for issues or commentary applied after that time (when the name was changed). I hope I got all the examples. Invertzoo (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
"A number of Nobel Laureates have published studies in PLOS ONE ..."
This statement would be more impressive if the Nobel Laureates listed had published first-author papers in PLOS ONE. Admittedly, at least one of the examples given has the Nobel Laureate as the second-of-two authors, but surely there are examples of Nobel Laureates judging PLOS ONE good enough for papers that they have led on? Also, it's pretty unsatisfactory to shove in links that are effectively searches using PLOS ONE as a substitute for listing the actual paper. I'd amend this immediately were it not for my preceding point about first-authorship. --PLUMBAGO 16:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've removed the sentence from the body and list it below. --PLUMBAGO 13:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
"is said to employ a "publish first, judge later" methodology, with post-publication user discussion and rating features"
This statement in the lede might suggest that PLOS ONE depends at least as much on post-publication peer review as on traditional pre-publication review. However, there are very few comments on the PLOS ONE website other than those added automatically by PLOS ONE to draw attention to any press releases or press coverage of articles, or minor corrections initiated by authors. There seems to be no formal mechanism for responding to reader comments. I suppose my question is: Is or was there anything novel or unique about PLOS ONE's web comments feature? If so, we could keep the statement and highlight any such features later. If not, the statement should be removed from the lede but could be explored elsewhere. BlackSoxFan2015 (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)