PLOScast was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 December 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into PLOS. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PLOS article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
The user may have been confused, because pre-publication papers [1], are available only as PDF, but once published, HTML full-text is available. -- Lexor 01:48, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
Per MOS and EL, dont use images in links. DGG ( talk) 03:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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)).
These sources could improve the article:
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)
In regards to that project, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organizations#Scope_and_goals says:
Therefore PLoS is under WP Organizations. WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
I changed the name of this article from Public Library of Science to PLOS. The organization most often and most prominently calls itself PLOS as does everyone else. WP:COMMONNAME. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
PLOS. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
PLOS workshops, conferences and recent webinar developments are not covered in this article? Can i add? Dentking07 ( talk) 12:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)