Talk:PLOS

message: 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
The user may have been confused, because pre-publication papers , are available only as PDF, but once published, HTML full-text is available.  -- Lexor 01:48, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: PDF only

message: 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)
thread_title:  Self-archive clairification 

message: 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 157.242.68.30 (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Open Access 

message: Can articles from PLoS be copied to wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.57.182 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 5 September 2006
Yes.  All articles from the PLoS journals are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.15.76.3 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 September 2006
::Note that this requires the source of the maerial to be specified. DGG 05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLoS in wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Reference List

message: Per MOS and EL, dont use images in links. DGG (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: links

message: Hello, my name is Liz Allen, I am director of Marketing and Communications at PLoS, lallen@plos.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. 
(Elisabethhallen (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions from PLoS staff

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Journal sources

message: 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."
Therefore PLoS is under WP Organizations.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WP Organizations

message: A large par of Library Science is made up of classification systems.
Without classification amassed knowledge becomes inaccessible
Janosabel (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking for library science? This article is about an organization.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Section needed about classifying all this information

message: This article should be helpful to round out the history of the org: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080702/full/454011a.html -Pete (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for expansion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on PLOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131108020226/http://www.plos.org:80/plos-announces-its-2012-2013-progress-update/ to http://www.plos.org/plos-announces-its-2012-2013-progress-update/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: PLOS workshops, conferences and recent webinar developments are not covered in this article? Can i add? Dentking07 (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conferences