PLOS One

Last updated

History

Development

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded PLOS a $9 million grant in December 2002 and $1 million grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new free-access biomedical journals. [1] [2] Later, PLOS One was launched in December 2006 as a beta version named PLOS One. It launched with commenting and note-making functionality, and added the ability to rate articles in July 2007. In September 2007, the ability to leave "trackbacks" on articles was added. [3] In August 2008, the journal moved from a weekly to a daily publication schedule, publishing articles as soon as they became ready. [4] PLOS One came out of "beta" in October 2008.

In September 2009, as part of its article-level metrics program, PLOS One made its full online usage data, including HTML page views and PDF or XML download statistics, publicly available for every published article. In mid-2012, as part of a rebranding of PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name to PLOS One. [5]

Output and turnaround

YearPapers Published
20071,200 [6]
20082,800 [6]
20094,406 [7]
20106,749 [7]
201113,798 [8]
201223,468 [9]
201331,500 [10]
201430,040 [11]
201528,107 [12]
201622,054 [13]

The number of papers published by PLOS One grew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat. By 2010, it was estimated to have become the largest journal in the world, [7] and in 2011, 1 in 60 articles indexed by PubMed were published by PLOS One. [14] By September 2017, PLOS One confirmed they had published over 200,000 articles. [15] By November 2017, the journal Scientific Reports overtook PLOS One in terms of output. [16] [17]

At PLOS One, the median review time has grown from 37 days to 125 days over the first ten years of operation, according to Himmelstein's analysis, done for Nature . The median between acceptance and posting a paper on the site has decreased from 35 to 15 days over the same period. Both numbers for 2016 roughly correspond to the industry-wide averages for biology-related journals. [18] [19]

Management

The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge. [20] He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012. [21] Damian Pattinson then held the chief editorial position until December 2015. [22] Joerg Heber was as editor-in-chief from November 2016 [23] before Emily Chenette took over in that position in March 2021. [24]

Publication concept

PLOS One is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead, PLOS One only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. [25]

Each submission will be assessed by a member of the PLOS ONE Editorial Board before publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees. If published, papers will be made available for community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating. [26]

According to Nature , the journal's aim is to "challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors". [27] Being an online-only publication allows PLOS One to publish more papers than a print journal. In an effort to facilitate publication of research on topics outside, or between, traditional science categories, it does not restrict itself to a specific scientific area. [25]

Papers published in PLOS One can be of any length, contain full color throughout, and contain supplementary materials such as multimedia files. Reuse of articles is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License. In the first four years following launch, it made use of over 40,000 external peer reviewers. [28] The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics handling submissions and publishes approximately 50% of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2.9 experts. [29] Registered readers can leave comments on articles on the website. [27]

Business model

A welcome message from PLoS to Nature Publishing Group on the launch of Scientific Reports, inspired by a similar message sent in 1981 by Apple to IBM upon the latter's entry into the personal computer market with its IBM Personal Computer. Welcome, Nature. Seriously. (from PLoS) (5405189157).pdf
A welcome message from PLoS to Nature Publishing Group on the launch of Scientific Reports, inspired by a similar message sent in 1981 by Apple to IBM upon the latter's entry into the personal computer market with its IBM Personal Computer.

As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, open access to PLOS One is financed by an article processing charge, typically paid by the author's institution or by the author. This model allows PLOS journals to make all articles available to the public for free immediately upon publication. As of April 2021, PLOS One charges a publication fee of $1,745 to publish an article. [32] Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce the fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds. [32]

PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the first time in 2010, [33] largely due to the growth of PLOS One. The success of PLOS One inspired a series of other open access journals, [34] including some that have been criticized as "megajournals" having broad scope, low selectivity, and a pay-to-publish model using Creative Commons licenses. [35] [36]

Reception and criticism

In September 2009, PLOS One received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers. [37] The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term prospects". In January 2010, it was announced that the journal would be included in the Journal Citation Reports , [38] and the journal received an impact factor of 4.411 in 2010. According to the Journal Citation Reports , the journal has a 2018 impact factor of 2.776. [39]

The PLOS business model has been criticized, for example, by journalist Richard Poynder, who posited in 2011 that journals such as PLOS One that charge for publication rather than charging users for access may produce a conflict of interest that reduces peer review standards (accept more articles, earn more revenue). [40]

Abstracting and indexing

The articles are indexed in: [26]

Response to controversial publications

Alleged sexism in one peer review instance

On April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at the University of Sussex and Australian National University respectively, posted a rejection letter, which they said was sent to them by a peer reviewer for a journal they did not wish to name. The excerpt made negative comments about women's aptitude for science and advised Ingleby and Head to find male co-authors. Shortly afterward, the journal was reported to be PLOS One. By May 1, PLOS announced that it was severing ties with the reviewer responsible for the comments and asking the editor who relayed them to step down. PLOS One also issued an apology statement following the incident. [41]

CreatorGate

On March 3, 2016, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article about the functioning of the human hand [42] due to outrage among the journal's readership over a reference to "Creator" inside the paper. [43] The authors, who received grants from the Chinese National Basic Research Program and National Natural Science Foundation of China for this work, responded by saying "Creator" is a poorly-translated idiom (造化(), literally "(that which) creates or transforms") [44] which means "nature" in the Chinese language. Despite the authors' protests, the article was retracted. [45] A less sympathetic explanation for the use of "Creator" was suggested to The Chronicle of Higher Education by Chinese-language experts who noted that the academic editor listed on the paper, Renzhi Han, previously worked at the Chinese Evangelical Church in Iowa City. [46]

Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post presented a detailed analysis of the problem, which she named #CreatorGate, and concluded that the journal's hasty retraction may have been an even bigger offense than the publication of the paper in the first place. [47] To contrast PLOS One's handling of the problem, she used a 12-year history of retraction of the fraudulent paper on vaccine and autism by The Lancet and the lack of a retraction of a debunked study on "arsenic life" by Science . [48] [49] Others added the history of the article in Nature on "water memory" that was not retracted either. [50]

Jonathan Eisen, chair of the advisory board of a sister journal PLOS Biology and an advocate for open-access, commended PLOS One for their prompt response on social media, which in his words "most journals pretend doesn't even exist". [51] David Knutson issued a statement about the paper processing at PLOS One, which praised the importance of post-publication peer review and described their intention to offer open signed reviews in order to ensure accountability of the process. [52] From March 2 to 9, the research article received total 67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS One site. [42] Signe Dean of SBS put #CreatorGate in perspective: it is not the most scandalous retraction in science, yet it shows how a social media outrage storm does expedite a retraction. [53]

Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy

On August 27, 2018, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article published two weeks earlier by Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman. [54] The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or "cluster outbreaks" in gender dysphoria among young people, which Littman called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria". [55] Data was obtained from a survey placed on three websites for concerned parents of children with gender dysphoria, asking for responses from parents whose children had experienced "sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21". [56] 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. [57] [58]

On March 19, 2019, PLOS One completed its review. Reviewer Angelo Brandelli Costa criticized the methods and conclusion of the study in a formal comment, saying, "The level of evidence produced by the Dr. Littman’s study cannot generate a new diagnostic criterion relative to the time of presentation of the demands of medical and social gender affirmation." [59] In a separate letter apologizing for the failure of peer review to address the issues with the article, PLOS One Editor-in-chief Joerg Heber said, "we have reached the conclusion that the study and resultant data reported in the article represent a valid contribution to the scientific literature. However, we have also determined that the study, including its goals, methodology, and conclusions, were not adequately framed in the published version, and that these needed to be corrected." [60]

The paper was republished with updated Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, but the Results section was mostly unchanged. In her correction, Littman emphasized that the article was "a study of parental observations which serves to develop hypotheses", saying "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time. This report did not collect data from the adolescents and young adults (AYAs) or clinicians and therefore does not validate the phenomenon. Additional research that includes AYAs, along with consensus among experts in the field, will be needed to determine if what is described here as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) will become a formal diagnosis." [61]

Related Research Articles

PLOS Nonprofit open-access publisher

PLOS is a nonprofit open-access science, technology, and medicine publisher with a library of open-access journals and other scientific literature under an open-content license. It launched its first journal, PLOS Biology, in October 2003 and publishes seven journals. The organization is based in San Francisco, California, and has a European editorial office in Cambridge, Great Britain. The publications are primarily funded by payments from the authors.

Academic publishing Subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in academic journal articles, books or thesis' form. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called "grey literature". Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

In academic publishing, a retraction is the action by which a published paper in an academic journal is removed from the journal. Online journals typically remove the retracted article from online access.

<i>PLOS Medicine</i> Academic journal

PLOS Medicine is a peer-reviewed weekly medical journal covering the full spectrum of the medical sciences. It began operation on October 19, 2004, as the second journal of the Public Library of Science (PLOS), a non-profit open access publisher. All content in PLOS Medicine is published under the Creative Commons "by-attribution" license. To fund the journal, the publication's business model requires in most cases that authors pay publication fees. The journal was published online and in a printed format until 2005 and is now only published online. The journal's acting chief editor is Clare Stone, who replaced the previous chief editor, Larry Peiperl, in 2018.

PLOS Genetics is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal established in 2005 and published by the Public Library of Science. The founding editor-in-chief was Wayne N. Frankel. The current editors-in-chief are Gregory S. Barsh and Gregory P. Copenhaver. The journal covers research on all aspects of genetics and genomics.

PLOS Computational Biology is a monthly peer-reviewed open access scientific journal covering computational biology. It was established in 2005 and is published by the Public Library of Science in association with the International Society for Computational Biology. The founding editor-in-chief was Philip Bourne and the current one is Ruth Nussinov.

MDPI or Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute is a publisher of open access scientific journals. Founded by Shu-Kun Lin as a chemical sample archive, it has established over 200 broad-scope journals. MDPI is the largest open access publisher in the world and the 5th largest publisher overall in terms of journal paper output. The number of published papers has been growing significantly in the last decade with year over year growth of over 50% in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is an academic publisher of presumably peer-reviewed open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies of questionable quality. Although it has an address in southern California, according to Jeffrey Beall it is a Chinese operation.

Scientific Reports is an online peer-reviewed open access scientific mega journal published by Nature Research, covering all areas of the natural sciences. The journal was launched in 2011. The journal has announced that their aim is to assess solely the scientific validity of a submitted paper, rather than its perceived importance, significance or impact.

Copernicus Publications is a publisher of scientific literature based in Göttingen, Germany. Founded in 1994, Copernicus Publications currently publishes 28 peer-reviewed open access scientific journals and other publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

Scholarly peer review is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.

Frontiers Media SA is a publisher of peer-reviewed open access scientific journals currently active in science, technology, and medicine. It was founded in 2007 by a group of neuroscientists, including Henry and Kamila Markram, and later expanded to other academic fields. Frontiers is based in Lausanne, Switzerland, with other offices in London, Madrid, Seattle and Brussels. All Frontiers journals are published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).

<i>PeerJ</i> Academic journal

PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific mega journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. It is published by a company of the same name that was co-founded by CEO Jason Hoyt and publisher Peter Binfield, with initial financial backing of US$950,000 from O'Reilly Media's O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, and later funding from Sage Publishing.

Whos Afraid of Peer Review?

"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" is an article written by Science correspondent John Bohannon that describes his investigation of peer review among fee-charging open-access journals. Between January and August 2013, Bohannon submitted fake scientific papers to 304 journals owned by as many fee-charging open access publishers. The papers, writes Bohannon, "were designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they should have been rejected immediately by editors and peer reviewers", but 60% of the journals accepted them. The article and associated data were published in the 4 October 2013 issue of Science as open access.

Medicine is an open access peer-reviewed medical journal published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, an imprint of Wolters Kluwer. It was established in 1922. Of general medical journals still in publication since 1959, Medicine had the highest number of citations per paper between 1959 and 2009. The journal covers all aspects of clinical medicine and publishes in over 43 specialty subjects.

A mega journal is a peer-reviewed academic open access journal designed to be much larger than a traditional journal by exercising low selectivity among accepted articles. It was pioneered by PLOS ONE. This publishing model was soon emulated by other publishers.

Chitra Mandal is a chemical biologist in the field of biomolecules and their applications in health and diseases. She is currently the Director of CSIR - Indian Institute of Chemical biology in Kolkata, India.

Conflicts of interest in academic publishing Overview of conflicts of interest in academic publishing

Conflicts of interest (COIs) often arise in academic publishing. Such conflicts may cause wrongdoing and make it more likely. Ethical standards in academic publishing exist to avoid and deal with conflicts of interest, and the field continues to develop new standards. Standards vary between journals and are unevenly applied. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "[a]uthors have a responsibility to evaluate the integrity, history, practices and reputation of the journals to which they submit manuscripts".

Rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a controversial proposed socially mediated subtype of gender dysphoria. Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman created the term to describe surveyed parents' accounts of their teenage children suddenly manifesting symptoms of gender dysphoria and self-identifying as transgender simultaneously with other children in their peer group. Littman speculated that rapid onset of gender dysphoria could be a "social coping mechanism" for other disorders. ROGD is not recognized by any major professional association, with Littman noting that it is "not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time".

<i>Irreversible Damage</i> 2020 book by Abigail Shrier

Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters is a 2020 book by Abigail Shrier, by Regnery Publishing. The book endorses the contentious concept of rapid onset gender dysphoria, which is not recognized by any major professional institution. Shrier states that there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification" among teenagers assigned female at birth during the 2010s. She attributes this to a social contagion among "high-anxiety, depressive girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder". Shrier also criticizes gender-affirming psychiatric support, hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria in young people.

References

  1. "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Archived from the original on March 2, 2007. Retrieved December 17, 2002.
  2. "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Archived from the original on 2007-02-25.
  3. Zivkovic, Bora. "Trackbacks are here!". Archived from the original on 2010-10-11. Retrieved 2015-03-15.
  4. "PLOS ONE Milestones". dipity. January 6, 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-01-06., a timeline on Dipity
  5. David Knutson (23 July 2012). "New PLOS look". PLOS BLOG. Public Library of Science. Archived from the original on 6 August 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2012.
  6. 1 2 Kaiser, Jocelyn (June 4, 2014). "Output Drops at World's Largest Open Access Journal". Science. Retrieved 2015-10-26.
  7. 1 2 3 Morrison, Heather (January 5, 2011). "PLoS ONE: now the world's largest journal?". Poetic Economics Blog. Retrieved 2011-01-16.
  8. Taylor, Mike (February 21, 2012). "It's Not Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Communication". Discover Magazine . Retrieved 2012-03-03.
  9. Hoff, Krista (January 3, 2013). "PLOS ONE Papers of 2012". everyONE Blog. Retrieved 2013-05-21.
  10. Kayla Graham (January 6, 2014). "Thanking Our Peer Reviewers – EveryONEEveryONE". Blogs.plos.org. Retrieved 2015-05-17.
  11. "PLoS One Impact Factor|2016|2015|2014 - BioxBio". www.bioxbio.com. Retrieved 2016-10-17.
  12. Davis, Phil (February 2, 2016). "As PLOS ONE Shrinks, 2015 Impact Factor Expected to Rise". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2016-10-17.
  13. Davis, Phil (January 5, 2017). "PLOS ONE Output Drops Again In 2016". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2017-01-05.
  14. Konkeil, Stacey (December 20, 2011). "PLOS ONE: Five Years, Many Milestones". everyONE Blog. Retrieved 2011-12-24.
  15. "A Publishing Milestone to Celebrate: 200,000 PLOS Research Articles and Counting | STM Publishing News". www.stm-publishing.com. Retrieved 2017-09-27.
  16. "Scientific Reports Overtakes PLOS ONE As Largest Megajournal - The Scholarly Kitchen". The Scholarly Kitchen. April 6, 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  17. "PLOS Reports $1.7M Loss In 2016 - The Scholarly Kitchen". The Scholarly Kitchen. November 27, 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  18. Kendall, Powell (February 11, 2016). "Does it take too long to publish research?" (PDF). Nature . 530 (7589): 148–151. Bibcode:2016Natur.530..148P. doi: 10.1038/530148a . PMID   26863966. S2CID   1013588 . Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  19. Himmelstein, Daniel (February 10, 2016). "The history of publishing delays". Satoshi Village. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  20. Poynder, Richard (June 15, 2006). "Open Access: Stage Two". Open and Shut Blog. Retrieved 2011-03-27.
  21. Jerram, Peter (May 8, 2012). "Publisher of PLOS ONE moves to new Open-Access initiative". The official PLOS Blog. Retrieved 2012-06-22.
  22. "Research Square hires Damian Pattinson, former Editorial Director of PLOS ONE | STM Publishing News". www.stm-publishing.com. Retrieved 2016-09-17.
  23. "PLOS appoints Dr. Joerg Heber Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE | The Official PLOS Blog". September 16, 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-17.
  24. "A New Editor-in-Chief for PLOS ONE/ | The Official PLOS Blog". March 11, 2021. Retrieved 2021-05-18.
  25. 1 2 MacCallum, C. J. (2006). "ONE for All: The Next Step for PLOS". PLOS Biol. 4 (11): e401. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040401. PMC   1637059 . PMID   17523266.
  26. 1 2 PLOS ONE Journal Information. Plosone.org (September 4, 2012). Retrieved on 2013-06-20.
  27. 1 2 Giles, J. (2007). "Open-Access Journal Will Publish First, Judge Later". Nature . 445 (7123): 9. Bibcode:2007Natur.445....9G. doi: 10.1038/445009a . PMID   17203032.
  28. "Thanking PLOS ONE Peer Reviewers". PLOS ONE. December 2010. Retrieved 2011-01-16.
  29. "PLOS ONE Editorial and Peer-Review Process". PLOS ONE. 2008. Archived from the original on 2012-04-21. Retrieved 2013-12-12.
  30. Allen, Liz (January 19, 2011). "Welcome, Nature. Seriously". Archived from the original on 2012-01-15.
  31. Welcome, IBM. Seriously (from Apple in 1981) on Flickr. August 21, 1981.
  32. 1 2 "Publication Fees". PLOS. Archived from the original on 2021-04-29. Retrieved 2021-04-30.
  33. Peter Jerram (July 20, 2011). "2010 PLoS Progress Update". Archived from the original on January 16, 2012. Retrieved January 16, 2012.
  34. Sitek, Dagmar; Bertelmann, Roland (2014). "Open Access: A State of the Art". In Sönke Bartling; Sascha Friesike (eds.). Opening Science. Springer. p. 139. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9. ISBN   978-3-319-00025-1.
  35. Rhodri Jackson and Martin Richardson, "Gold open access: the future of the academic journal?", Chapter 9 in Cope and Phillip (2014), pp. 223–248. The Future of the Academic Journal, 2nd ed., Chandos Publishing, July 1, 2014, 478 pages.
  36. Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon, Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges Archived June 2, 2014, at the Wayback Machine , March 2014, 69 pages. Final Report to a consortium of research funders comprising Jisc, Research Libraries UK, Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Science Fund, the Luxembourg National Research Fund, and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.
  37. "ALPSP Awards 2010–finalists announced". ALPSP. Archived from the original on 11 December 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
  38. Patterson, Mark (January 5, 2010). "PLOS ONE indexed by Web of Science". PLOS Blogs. Retrieved 2010-09-09.
  39. "PLOS One". 2018 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Clarivate Analytics. 2018.
  40. Poynder, Richard (March 7, 2011). "PLOS ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing". Open and Shut Blog. Retrieved 2011-03-27.
  41. Bernstein, Rachel (May 1, 2015). "PLOS ONE ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm". Science. Retrieved 2015-10-27.
  42. 1 2 Liu, Ming-Jin; Xiong, Cai-Hua; Xiong, Le; Huang, Xiao-Lin (January 5, 2016). "Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. 11 (1): e0146193. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1146193L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146193. PMC   4701170 . PMID   26730579. (Retracted, see doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151685)
  43. Davis, Nicola (March 7, 2016). "Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted after furore". The Guardian . Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  44. Mair, Victor (March 4, 2016). "The hand of god". Language Log . Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  45. The PLOS ONE Staff (March 4, 2016). "Retraction: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. 11 (3): e0151685. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1151685.. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151685. PMC   4778690 . PMID   26943177.
  46. Basken, Paul (March 7, 2016). "Paper Praising 'Creator' Puts Fear of God in Open-Access Giant". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  47. Kaplan, Sarah (March 8, 2016). "#CreatorGate: How a study on hands sparked an uproar about science, God and ethics in publishing". The Washington Post . Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  48. Wakefield, AJ; Murch, SH; Anthony, A; Linnell, J; Casson, DM; Malik, M; Berelowitz, M; Dhillon, AP; Thomson, MA; Harvey, P; Valentine, A; Davies, SE; Walker-Smith, JA (1998). "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children". The Lancet . 351 (9103): 637–641. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID   9500320. S2CID   439791 . Retrieved 2016-03-09. (Retracted)
  49. Wolfe-Simon, Felisa; Blum, Jodi Switzer; Kulp, Thomas R.; Gordon, Gwyneth W.; Hoeft, Shelley E.; Pett-Ridge, Jennifer; Stolz, John F.; Webb, Samuel M.; Weber, Peter K.; Davies, P. C. W.; Anbar, A. D.; Oremland, R. S. (December 2, 2010). "A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus". Science . 332 (6034): 1163–1166. Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1163W. doi: 10.1126/science.1197258 . PMID   21127214.
  50. Cressey, Daniel (March 10, 2016). "Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern. Apparently creationist research prompts soul searching over process of editing and peer review" (PDF). Nature . 531 (7593): 143. Bibcode:2016Natur.531..143C. doi: 10.1038/531143f . S2CID   4469173 . Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  51. Kotack, Madison (March 3, 2016). "A Science Journal Invokes 'the Creator,' and Science Pushes Back". Wired. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  52. Schneider, Leonid (March 4, 2016). "Hand of God paper retracted: PLOS ONE "could not stand by the pre-publication assessment"". For Better Science. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  53. Dean, Signe (March 7, 2016). "Not just #creatorgate: Most scandalous retractions in science". SBS . Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  54. Littman, Lisa (August 27, 2018). "Statement by PLOS ONE staff". PLOS ONE. 13 (8): e0202330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330. PMC   6095578 . PMID   30114286.
  55. Littman, Lisa (August 16, 2018). "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports". PLOS ONE. 13 (8): e0202330. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1302330L. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214157.s001 .
  56. "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria: New study recruiting parents". July 2, 2016. Archived from the original on 2018-03-09. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  57. "Why are so many teenage girls appearing in gender clinics?". The Economist. September 1, 2018. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  58. Serano, Julia (August 22, 2018). "Everything You Need to Know About Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria". Medium. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  59. Costa, Angello Brandelli (March 19, 2019). "Formal comment on: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria". PLOS ONE. 14 (3): e0212578. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1412578B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212578. PMC   6424477 . PMID   30889187.
  60. Heber, Joerg (March 19, 2019). "Correcting the scientific record on gender incongruence – and an apology". PLOS One. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  61. Littman, Lisa (August 16, 2018). "Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria". PLOS ONE. 13 (8): e0202330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330. PMC   6095578 . PMID   30114286.