Talk:PLOS One

message: Since the Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy has its own article, does it really make sense to spend four paragraphs on it here, or should we try to condense it and keep most of the content in the main article? Keeping as much as possible in one place, besides reducing redundancy, would also reduce the number of places for the contentious topic to be debated at (cf. the edit history and the sections above this one). -sche (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condense ROGD section? 

message: Jeffrey Beall described PLOS One as a "scientific spammer" which "esembles a lonely and un-selective digital repository more than a scholarly publication. "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji1987 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a listing on Beall's list. The criticism (with attribution) could be incorporate in the article however. Although there, the one from Retraction Watch is probably more relevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ill incorporate Beall's criticism. Can I add it like this?Kenji1987 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't think this change is appropriate as for such a generic statement this would need clear evidence of systematic misbehavior, and the opinion of Beall in itself would not warrant this, nor appears there to be systematic evidence that is being presented (the journal was also not on his list either)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.252.241 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beall is considered here as a reliable source. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your edit to the page and I would have concerns that as mentioned this is a broad sweeping statement that is taken out of context, and it seems to me that you haven't really commented on these concerns here. It seems to me also that this is missing context, i.e. that this is a comment made in 2016. For example, the introduction of transparent peer review at the journal in 2019. I would suggest that such changes and wider context would be mentioned here as well. To that end, I am lastly not sure the section where you added that statement is the right one anyway, as this concerns the reception of the journal after launch, and not its ongoing operation a few years later. Scitechwiki (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   All edits made by Kenji1987 here should be viewed in light of his other edits (see particularly Talk:MDPI and Talk:Frontiers in Psychology).  --JBL (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  I hadn't seen that. I would suggest to undo the edit until more discussion can take place... Scitechwiki (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome to Wikipedia  - I see that JBL conveniently mentioned some of the other discussions I am engaged in - I think that it is always valuable to see people's edits in the light of the previous edits they made. The truth of the matter is that Jeffrey Beall is a considered to be a reliable source here. He criticized PLOS One to be a scientific scammer. Therefore, there is merit to mention this on the Wiki page of PLOS One. I asked the users whether this information needs to be in the lead, but as PLOS One has never been in Beall's list - I do not think that this would justify such a prominent position. In all honesty, I would welcome a discussion on Beall (hence, please see my edits on other pages), hence, I would be more than happy to engage in one. But I do not think that the edit should be removed for now. Kenji1987 (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  I agree with this. The point here is that even Beall did not consider this to be of sufficient concern to include the journal or publisher in his list. Looking at the source quoted, this is concerning an isolated case at a specific point in time, and the quotation is presented in a generalizing manner, that seems not consistent with the fact that Beall did not include the journal on his list of concern. It is a professional opinion, but it is tied to a specific case in time and I haven't seen argumentation yet that would warrant a broad-sweeping statement. I think this needs more context to be an objective representation. The question then is whether this is really worth a broad discussion if it is a non-generalizable opinion. Seems there is a wider consensus to rethink that edit, so I'll undo the edit for now. Scitechwiki (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cannot simply undo the revision. The opinions so far show that Beall should be mentioned, but not in the lead. But I agree with Bluerasberry to reformulate it, etc. Also if you have a conflict of interest (ie you work for PLOSOne) you should disclose this (I was told this as well) Kenji1987 (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edited the mention to Beall (as you also agree with Bluerasberry here). I added a year, removed the questions, and added the reason why he thought PLOS One is a scientific spammer. This is not a place to discuss whethet Beall was right or not (I was being told!)Kenji1987 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: that looks better to me. I made some stylistic changes (I think!), see what you think. The reason I looked at this in more detail is that I was thinking about adding the transparent peer review scheme the journal has introduced earlier in the year. To me there is an opportunity to have a general section about the peer review process at the journal - which should include the criticism Beall has, along with some of these new developements. What do you think about eventually having a separate section "Peer Review at the journal" or something like that, where this item here could be placed eventually? Scitechwiki (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends whether independent sources talked about it or not. Many publishers have adopted a similar system. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence about Beall links to a brief chat-room discussion of one incident. One that isn't even confirmed as genuine. How does that get past policy like WP:RS? Where is the discussion in independent reliable sources? Zerotalk 04:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  Beall is considered a reliable blog, we have had this discussion many many many times. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beall has no qualifications whatsoever in the subjects that PLOS One publishes, so he has no expertise in PLOS One's publication standards. The previous discussions on noticeboards were about Beall's List, but PLOS One was not on that list. That by itself shows that Beall was not willing to take an official stand on it. We don't base articles on blog posts around here any more than we write articles on the basis of tweets. I also see above on this page that you never had much of a consensus; now you have no consensus at all. Zerotalk 07:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's wait and see what other editors say. Now we have only Zero consensus. Kenji1987 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to mention Beall in the lead 

message: PLOS used to be an acronym for "Public Library of Science", but they did a rebrand and now the letters are not supposed to mean anything and PLOS is supposed to be just a made up word.
The name of PLOS ONE used to be "PLoS One" with "One" meaning something like their primary or most important journal. Now the name is ONE, where "one" is not an acronym and again is just a name that does not mean anything in particular.
I cannot find sources talking about the name change but the journal calls itself PLOS ONE, and the name is no longer PLOS One. The Wikipedia article currently describes the name as PLOS One stylized as PLOS ONE, which is not correct.
Here is example self-published material with examples of name use. I cannot find an actual branding guide.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
I am mentioning all this now to document discussion. Typically Wikipedia would not do the rename without a branding guide or publicity about a name change, and I can find no such documentation. I think it is worth getting this name right because Wikipedia cites this journal a lot. Getting data is not easy, but this might be the most cited source in Wikipedia.  Bluerasberry (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two issues here. One is the name of the journal, and the other is the name of the organization that owns the journal. I'll address only the second in this comment. The organization is a registered legal entity and its formal name is what the legal documents say. Here and here are two very recent documents from the Board of Directors (October 2022) and here is the slightly older 2020 tax declaration to the State of California. All of these give the name of the organization as "Public Library of Science". Though not a legal document, here is a statement from PLOS that its name means "Public Library of Science". I conclude that there has not been any rebranding and PLOS still means "Public Library of Science". Zerotalk 06:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The evidence makes you right about the name of the organization. They use the name "Public Library of Science". I think I was just spreading rumor and incorrect information. Thanks for correcting me. I think the best conclusion is that I was just wrong about all this.  Bluerasberry (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name is PLOS  ONE 

message: For years this journal advertised having an accelerated peer review process and even promoted it as something that differentiated them from other traditional peer-reviewed journals. This should be mentioned under the publication concept. It was something they were criticized for because their time to acceptance and time to publication is not signficantly faster than most other journals.  Instantwatym (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of the supposed "accelerated peer review" under publication concept?