PLoS ONE Editorial and Peer-Review Process

Each submission to PLoS ONE passes through a rigorous quality control and peer-review evaluation process before receiving a decision. Beginning in 2008, we are providing the following summary data regarding our process. This information will be updated quarterly with the latest data:

• The PLoS ONE criteria for publication are as follows (more detailed information is provided here):
  • The study presents the results of primary scientific research.
  • Results reported have not been published elsewhere.
  • Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
  • Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
  • The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.
  • The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
  • The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.
• Each submission is subjected to an in-house quality control check, which deals with issues such as competing interests; ethical requirements for studies involving human participants or animals; financial disclosures; full compliance with data deposition standards, etc. As appropriate, the quality control is also conducted in consultation with the professional editors at PLoS Medicine and PLoS Biology. Submissions may be returned to authors for queries, and will not be seen by our Editorial Board or Peer Reviewers until they pass this quality control check.
• We use an international Editorial Board of over 2,000 academic experts, and a list of their areas of expertise is available at: http://www.plosone.org/edboard.xls. Once each manuscript has passed quality control, it is assigned to a member of the Editorial Board (or very occasionally an expert who is not a member of the Board), who takes responsibility as the Academic Editor for the submission. The Academic Editor is responsible for conducting the peer-review process and for making a decision to accept, invite revision of, or reject the article. Further details of the editorial process are described here.
• Our instructions for Peer Reviewers are to be found here. Currently, of the articles that are ultimately accepted for publication, 95.8%* were sent for review by external experts. Around 4.2%* of articles are peer reviewed by the Academic Editors themselves (often in consultation with other members of the Editorial Board) when they are sufficiently expert in the field to determine whether the paper meets the PLoS ONE criteria.
• On average, ALL accepted articles have been reviewed by 2.9* experts (one Academic Editor and 1.9* external Peer Reviewers).
• Authors can recommend specific Academic Editors, but PLoS ONE is not obliged to use that suggestion, and the identity of the Academic Editor is not revealed until a decision is rendered. The Academic Editor is also publicly identified on all published articles. If Peer Reviewers are willing, then they are also identified to the author at the time of decision.
• On average, PLoS ONE publishes 69%** of all submissions.
• Rejected papers are given the opportunity for a formal appeal.

*Data refer to the 1,837 manuscripts that received a decision in the period 7/1/10 - 9/30/10.

**Data refer to the 2,216 manuscripts submitted in the period 1/1/10 - 3/31/10 and their status as of 10/5/10. We quote data from an earlier time period as some submissions spend time passing through revisions and re-evaluations before ultimately being accepted or rejected. Therefore, if we quoted data for submissions in the most recent quarter, it would not give a complete picture for those papers still being evaluated.

Please see our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page for detailed information on common editorial inquiries.