Talk:PLOS One

Requested move 29 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

---

PLOS ONE → PLOS One – PLOS is an acronym (for Public Library of Science), "One" is not (PLOS One is simply PLOS's flagship interdisciplinary journal). Putting it in SCREAMING ALL-CAPS is just mimicry of marketing logo stylization, and is against WP:NCCAPS, MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS, and MOS:TITLES, and (behind all of these) WP:NPOV policy. If we don't permit SONY for Sony, this has to change, too. There's no cause to use PLoS One to match one of their former logos; it's no longer a common rendering in sources, and PLOS no longer uses it. We don't have any explicit rule about casing of an o for a lower-case of in the original name, and we generally follow how others treat an acronym, which does appear to be "PLOS" for the most part. By comparison, the [US] Department of Justice is traditionally given as "DoJ", though "DOJ" isn't unknown, and The Chicago Manual of Style's own editors abbreviate it CMOS, and everyone deals with it just fine. On PLOS One, book [1] and news [2] sources and the like are inconsistent; books favor PLOS One or PLoS One (many pre-date the rebranding to "PLOS"), while many newspapers may mimic PLOS ONE style (due to the nature of what they are, they favor the idea that a publication's logo should be mimicked, and you'll find them doing this a lot, e.g. giving song titles in "marketing caps" like "Do It Like A Dude"), while others use PLOS One, or PLoS One, and you can find weird outliers that make no sense, like Plos ONE. This is the kind of case where WP's own house style rules have to be employed, and imposed on lack of consistency "out there".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: See also AoB Plants, a similar situation and correctly named per WP style and naming guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support obviously. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

ROGD controversy

I wanted to include some notes here for a few of the sources used in this section.

Self-published sources: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/2a4269d4-90ab-4f26-bf00-1348cc787ca8 - This is a comment on the original article, left by the PLOS One staff. It was the only announcement of their review that they made, unfortunately. https://4thwavenow.com/2016/07/02/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-new-study-recruiting-parents/ - Used only as a source on itself https://medium.com/@juliaserano/everything-you-need-to-know-about-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-1940b8afdeba - While self-published, Serano is a subject matter expert with numerous publications on the subject, so she counts as credible on this.

https://quillette.com/2018/08/31/as-a-former-dean-of-harvard-medical-school-i-question-browns-failure-to-defend-lisa-littman/ - There's no consensus on Wikipedia if Quillette is reasonable (WP:RSP) and I would avoid using it, but Jeffrey Flier is definitely a subject matter expert.

Double-cited source: https://news.brown.edu/articles/2019/03/gender Brown decided to host all the statements on one page. I cited two of them, using the same URL but appropriate titles for each. I'm not sure what best practice is here. Safrolic (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's way too much I think. Alexbrn (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That's possible. I tried to keep it similar in length to the other two events in the section, though. It's part of an AfD discussion on two other articles, Rapid onset gender dysphoria and Lisa Littman. Safrolic (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources in ROGD controversy section

The citation of Medium (website) should be deleted. As Safrolic (talk · contribs) noted, it is a self-published source. It is also specifically red-flagged as not reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Medium. The SPS exception for an established subject matter expert doesn't apply to a "writer, spoken-word performer, trans–bi activist, and biologist" with a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biophysics (per Julia Serano's bio), because WP:EXPERTSOURCE requires "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphasis in original). Serano's third-party publications may qualify her as a subject matter expert in the field of transgender activism; that is, as a reliable source for facts in her writings about transgender activism, but not as a reliable source for claims of fact (i.e., advocacy) in her works of transgender activism. The cited reference isn't part of Serano's self-published scholarship; it is part of her self-published advocacy work, written in a non-scholarly voice.

More importantly, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Medium states: "Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons", and WP:SPS emphasizes "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." That's not limited to WP:BLP articles – never means never, and it applies everywhere. Serano's self-published post on Medium is a source about a living person. The SPS is a non-scholarly advocacy piece about ROGD that specifically personalizes the subject of its advocacy, calling Littman out by name and making contentious claims of fact about Littman. It should not be cited in an article about PLOS One. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The article text you are questioning is "The study was criticized by transgender activists like Julia Serano and medical professionals like developmental and clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft, as being politicized and having self-selected samples, as well as lacking clinical data or responses from the adolescents themselves."

The citation you wish to remove is Serano, Julia (2018-08-22). "Everything You Need to Know About Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria". Medium. Retrieved 2019-03-21..

The first question is "Does that source support the text The study was criticized by transgender activists like Julia Serano ... as being politicized and having self-selected samples, as well as lacking clinical data or responses from the adolescents themselves.?"

The answer to which is clearly "Yes". Nobody who reads it can be in any doubt that it was authored by Julia Serano (a notable author in Wikpedia's terms); that it was a criticism; that Serano criticises it as politicized ("ROGD provides political cover for those who wish to rollback trans rights and healthcare."); and that Serano criticises the sampling and the lack of responses from the children themselves ("What’s even more troubling is how this sample set of parents was selected: Recruitment information with a link to the survey was placed on three websites where parents and professionals had been observed to describe rapid onset of gender dysphoria").

The next question is whether Serano's blog is a reliable source for the text quoted. WP:SPS makes clear "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Our article text in question does not mention Littman, so all the stuff about BLP is a completely irrelevant smokescreen.

Is Serano a published expert in the relevant field? According to her article, Julia Serano, she is "an American writer, spoken-word performer, trans–bi activist, and biologist. She is known for her transfeminist books Whipping Girl, Excluded, and Outspoken. She has also been featured in queer, feminist, and pop-culture magazines, and she has given many talks at universities and conferences." It certainly looks like it to me, especially as her article adds "Serano earned her Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biophysics from Columbia University. She researched genetics and developmental and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley for seventeen years." What does somebody have to do to be recognised as a "published expert" in the field of developmental and evolutionary biology? Particularly in the social aspects of those areas relating to transgenderism, as discussed in each of her three books.

So the only questions left are

1. Is the inclusion of Serano's criticism given undue weight here? I contend that it is a valid, relevant and proportionate criticism by an expert in the field, and as such must be included per WP:DUE.
2. Are there any better sources for the criticism? After all, we are enjoined to exercise caution when using self-published sources. My view is that if better sources are available, we should use them, but in their absence, Serano's article is perfectly acceptable for the text it is being used to support.

I should add that Julia Serano ought to be wiki-linked in the article to give readers the background if they need it. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a much more thorough and well-written response to this complaint than I would have had the patience to write at this point. Thank you. Safrolic (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Condense ROGD section?

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)

PLOS One - The Diversity-Weighted Living Planet Index

Perhaps worth mentioning in this article is PLOS ONE's work regarding the LPI?

RE: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Living_Planet_Index#Criticism

"A 2017 investigation of the index by members of the ZSL team published in PLOS One found higher declines than had been estimated, and indications that in areas where less data is available, species might be declining more quickly."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169156

Request to mention Beall in the lead

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)

References

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)

Ill incorporate Beall's criticism. Can I add it like this?Kenji1987 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

Beall is considered here as a reliable source. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

@Scitechwiki: 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)

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia @Scitechwiki: - 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)

• Posting reviews like this in a section for "reception" is routine. This is not a strong enough source to merit inclusion in the lead, as this is more of a professional opinion than a standard review and the statement is from an unstable publication which vanished within 3 years. I would prefer the statement come with a date, as reviews of online publications get dated quickly, and also I prefer that someone re-write this in a way that is not a quotation. Quotations are challenging to translate and this article exists in more than 15 languages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? Zero^talk 04:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor Kenji1987: Wikipedia articles are written on the basis of reliable secondary sources. One of the source types we are not allowed to use is self-published blogs. Blogs which are highly controversial and not supported by a reliable institution are especially forbidden. If you think this blog is an exception, I challenge you to get support at WP:RSN. We also have a policy that material in an article should have sufficient weight. For a journal that handles thousands of submissions to make an occasional mistake is not interesting; on the contrary it would be a miracle if it never happened. Yet the evidence that this mistake even happened is described by the blogger himself as a "spam mail"; in other words, hardly any evidence at all. Your insertion is damaging to the quality of the article and a violation of policy. My honest opinion as an administrator is that your text would have zero chance of approval if it went to a policy noticeboard. Zero^talk 12:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Beall is considered a reliable blog, we have had this discussion many many many times. Kenji1987 (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Zero^talk 07:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what other editors say. Now we have only Zero consensus. Kenji1987 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding authors-pays to the lead

I added authors-pays to the lead but it is swiftly removed. I intend to place it back, but give people a chance to give counter-arguments. This is not an issue of NPOV as the author has to pay (and not even a little bit). Kenji1987 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your change, but I'd argue that "author-pays" is slightly non-neutral because it assumes (sort of polemically) that authors pay APCs, which is generally not true. More neutral might be "APC-funded" or "pay-to-publish" (as opposed to pay-to-read). However, nearly all journals by big publishers are at least partially APC-funded nowadays, so this information is not especially relevant; similarly, being peer-reviewed is sort of obvious. Both qualifications are a matter of degree, not black or white, and rather difficult to find good third party sources for.

Personally I'm more worried about the readability of the sentence. Instead of "is a [insert N qualifiers] journal", I'd prefer "is an open access journal", period. Then add whatever description is needed. It would be nice to have some kind of standard to apply across all articles on journals, or at least the most visited of them, but it's probably a lost cause. Nemo 06:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer review needs to be mentioned in the lead, and is the recommendation of our journal writing guide. Charging APCs is fairly standard, but that shouldn't be framed as "pay-to-publish". Simply saying the journal is funded by APCs is enough, if that even needs to be mentionned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to standardize it, but it is hard to do it. What could be a standard way that we could use for all open-access APC journals?Kenji1987 (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Name is PLOS ONE

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)

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". Zero^talk 06:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000: 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)

Why is there no mention of the supposed "accelerated peer review" under publication concept?

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)