Open-access publishing facilitates rigorous peer review and evidence-based communication when it counts most

The emergence of a novel coronavirus in 2019 highlighted the importance of PLOS One’s mission to advance open science. As Governments and researchers raced to understand and mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an urgent need for credible evidence to be communicated effectively and accessibly. Policymakers and lay audiences alike looked to  PLOS’s body of open access research for answers.

In the first stages of the pandemic, two papers from the PLOS One archive spiked in views. In the first, “Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population,” (2008) Marianne van der Sande and colleagues investigated the possible role of masking in containing a potential influenza epidemic, finding that all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure. Before COVID-19 studies were available, audiences used this information when considering whether masking might reduce transmission.

The second paper to see a surge in interest was Christophe Fraser’s 2007 manuscript, “Estimating Individual and Household Reproduction Numbers in an Emerging Epidemic.” Fraser aimed “to develop methods for estimating reproduction numbers which are simple enough that they could be applied with limited data or in real time during an outbreak.” As tracking the spread of COVID-19 became an international priority, Fraser’s research informed monitoring efforts and earned over 100 citations in 2020 alone. 

PLOS One’s first manuscript about COVID-19 itself was published on March 19, 2020, just eight days after the World Health Organization officially declared a pandemic. In “Association of radiologic findings with mortality of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China,” Mingli Yuan and colleagues retrospectively studied 27 patients with coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China, finding a CT image scoring method could predict mortality.  

Fig 2. Comparison of CT images between survival group and mortality group. CT images of a 76-year-old woman from survival group showed pure ground glass opacities with predominant peripheral distribution in middle and lower lung zones (A-C). Air bronchogram, together with extensive of consolidations and ground glass opacities were found in the CT images of a 72–year-old woman from mortality group (D-F). (source: Yuan M, Yin W, Tao Z, Tan W, Hu Y (2020) Association of radiologic findings with mortality of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. PLOS ONE)  

With 3,866 citations on Google Scholar, “Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak” became PLOS One’s most highly cited COVID-19 paper. Junling Gao and colleagues investigated the impact of social media on mental health during the pandemic, a topic that was relevant to a great many readers upon its publication in April 2020. The authors found that, after controlling for other factors, social media exposure was positively correlated with increased anxiety. 

Since COVID-19 entered its endemic phase, interest remains high in the virus’ effects and its relationship to public health. Primary research areas include the understanding and treatment of Long COVID, and the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. In May 2025, Michael Lawrence and colleagues produced “Self-reported health, neuropsychological tests and biomarkers in fully recovered COVID-19 patients vs patients with post-COVID cognitive symptoms: A pilot study.” This was the first study to compare inflammation and brain stress responses in Long COVID-19 patients with individuals who have fully recovered, identifying the first possible biomarkers of Long COVID in humans. Later in 2025, Mawulom Kuatewo and colleagues’ “Fake news, misinformation, vaccine hesitancy and the role of community engagement in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Southern Ghana” examined qualitative reasons for anti-vaccine sentiments. They found that acceptance of misinformation was widespread in study communities, and identified reduced trust in government and public institutions. 

COVID-19 provided a striking example of the importance of clear and visible science communication. Open science has a vital role in promoting robust research, in countering misinformation, and in informing Governments and the public, which are all essential to ensuring effective responses to emergencies. We are committed to expanding and promoting this open science vision at PLOS One.

References

van der Sande M, Teunis P, Sabel R (2008) Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population. PLOS ONE 3(7): e2618. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002618

Yuan M, Yin W, Tao Z, Tan W, Hu Y (2020) Association of radiologic findings with mortality of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. PLOS ONE 15(3): e0230548. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230548

The post PLOS One and COVID: How open science supported the global pandemic response appeared first on EveryONE.

Every year on 16th October, the world celebrates World Food Day. This event, organised by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, promotes global awareness of hunger, food security, and sustainable agriculture.

This year’s theme is “Innovate today. Nourish tomorrow”. One of the biggest challenges we must innovate against is climate change, which threatens our crops with more frequent and intense droughts, heatwaves and flooding, as well as changing pest pressures, diseases, and soil ecosystems.

To meet these challenges, researchers around the world are exploring ways to make agriculture more resilient. In this post, we explore some of the recent research published in PLOS One, which highlights a selection of the approaches being investigated, from developing stress-tolerant crops to harnessing the diversity of nature and supporting farmers in adopting new practices.

Developing stress-resistant crops

If climate change means crops will face more drought, can we breed plants that are better able to withstand it? In their April 2026 study, Tenena Silue and colleagues grew 150 soybean varieties under drought-stressed and well-watered conditions to investigate how reduced water availability affected their yields. Some varieties were much better able to cope with reduced water, and could be key for breeding climate-resilient crops. The lines most susceptible to drought are also valuable for future research, helping scientists to pinpoint which genes are most important for the drought response. 

Stress tolerance in plants is complicated. Shahida Ferdousee and colleagues showed this in their research investigating how four tomato cultivars responded to salinity and drought. Some plants coped by increasing their levels of proline, a molecule that helps cells regulate their water balance, while others maintained lower levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS). These molecules play important roles in cell signalling, but excessive amounts can damage cells. These findings highlight how differently plants can respond to environmental stresses, even within the same species. There is no single trait that will make every crop resilient to a changing climate, and developing more climate-proof crops will require us to understand and harness a range of biological mechanisms.

Harnessing nature’s diversity

Breeding crops for better stress tolerance is vital, but researchers don’t have to start from scratch. Potentially useful traits can already exist in traditional crop varieties and their wild relatives. 

In their recent PLOS One article, Xavier Perrier and colleagues showed that wild crop relatives have contributed to the genetic diversity of cultivated bananas. Their natural diversity may represent a valuable source of traits that may help crops to adapt to local conditions. Building more resilient agriculture may therefore depend, in part, on looking beyond the crops we grow today and exploring the genetic diversity in their wild relatives.

Regionally adapted traditional crop varieties also have an important role to play. These varieties, known as landraces, have been developed over time through selection by local farmers and adaptation to particular environments. Pradip Thapa and colleagues recently studied 58 Nepalese landraces of the common bean, finding substantial genetic variation that could be used in the breeding of this important crop. Landraces are much more closely related to commercial crop cultivars than are wild crop relatives, making it easier to incorporate their useful traits through crop breeding. 

Landraces also have important cultural value, with important ties to the knowledge and agricultural traditions of their local farming communities. Conserving them can therefore preserve both useful genetic resources and the cultural heritage of the people who developed and use them.

Looking beyond the plants

Plants do not face environmental stress alone. Many form mutually beneficial partnerships with fungi in the soil, known as mycorrhizal fungi. These fungi extend networks of fine threads called hyphae through the soil, helping plants access water and nutrients. In return, plants supply their fungal partners with sugars produced through photosynthesis. These interactions can be particularly valuable when growing conditions become challenging.

For example, Xiao Xuefeng and colleagues investigated how mycorrhizal fungi supported the cinnamon relative Cinnamomum migao during drought stress, showing that the fungi improved the plant’s uptake of water and nutrients. This work reminds us that plants do not exist in isolation, and we must consider the wider ecosystem when trying to climate-proof our crops.

Will farmers adopt climate-smart crops?

Developing more resilient crops is only part of the challenge. For these innovations to make a difference, farmers need to be able to access and use them. 

What influences a farmer’s decision to take a risk on a new climate-resilient crop variety? In their recent PLOS One study, Juliana Toboyee and colleagues surveyed smallholder farmers in Ghana about the challenges associated with adopting climate-smart agricultural practices, such as growing drought-tolerant crops, improving irrigation systems, and minimally tilling the soil. A range of factors influenced farmer willingness to adopt these practices, including access to finance, awareness of the potential benefits, and the availability of agricultural support services.

These findings highlight that innovation alone is not enough. Policymakers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) must play an important role by providing information, financial support, and access to agricultural services, helping farmers to make informed decisions about which approaches are right for their circumstances.

A collaborative path to resilient agriculture

Can we climate-proof our crops? There is no single solution, but the research presented here highlights several promising approaches. 

Developing stress-tolerant crop varieties, drawing on the natural genetic diversity of wild relatives and traditional landraces, and supporting beneficial interactions between plants and mycorrhizal fungi could all contribute to more resilient agricultural systems. Just as importantly, farmers need resources, knowledge, and support to put new climate-resilient crops and practices into action.

Ultimately, climate resilience is not only a scientific challenge. It requires collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and farming communities, combining biological innovation with practical knowledge and support. 

This World Food Day, the message is clear: food security in a changing climate requires innovating today and working together to ensure those innovations can nourish tomorrow.

References

1. Silue T, Olasanmi B, Adewumi AS, Agre PA, Adejumobi II, et al. (2026) Multi-trait selection for drought-tolerant soybean accessions under contrasting water regimes. PLOS ONE 21(4): e0344624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344624
2. Ferdousee S, Hwangbo M, Arman MS, Azad MAK, Ghosh A, et al. (2026) Phenotypic and biochemical responses of high-yield tomato varieties to salinity and drought stress. PLOS ONE 21(8): e0355714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355714
3. Perrier X, Sachter-Smith G, Breton C, Rivallan R, Jacquemoud-Collet JP, et al. (2026) Beyond domestication: The unexpected contribution of native Musa wild relatives to cultivated banana diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. PLOS ONE 21(8): e0352247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0352247 
4. Thapa P, Bohara S, Shrestha P, Raut SK, Joshi BK (2026) Morphological and molecular characterization of Nepalese Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Landraces. PLOS ONE 21(7): e0354479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354479 
5. Xuefeng X, Xiu T, Gang H, Lu X, Rui H, et al. (2026) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improve drought toleration in Cinnamomum migao H.W.Li seedlings by increasing plant growth, nutrient uptake and biomass accumulation. PLOS ONE 21(4): e0347670. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347670 
6. Toboyee J, Molle MN, Peprah K, Aabeyir R, Saaka SA, et al. (2026) Challenges to the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in semi-arid Ghana. PLOS ONE 21(8): e0355679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355679 

The post World Food Day: Can we climate-proof our crops? appeared first on EveryONE.

Your work explores educational leadership in school systems, recently focusing on the role of artificial intelligence in education. How did you become interested in this topic?

My interest in artificial intelligence in education developed naturally from my longstanding work on educational leadership, organizational change, and school improvement. Much of my research has focused on how leaders, teachers, and educational institutions respond to change, and on the organizational and psychological conditions that enable innovation to succeed.

The rapid development of generative AI made these questions particularly important. What interested me was not only what AI can technically do, but how educational institutions and professionals understand, adopt, and govern its use. This led me to explore issues such as institutional support for AI, educators’ AI self-efficacy, digital transformation, responsible use, and the ways in which leadership can shape the adoption of emerging technologies.

I therefore tend to view AI in education not simply as a technological development, but as a leadership and organizational challenge. Its educational value depends greatly on how institutions create supportive conditions, build professional capacity, address ethical concerns, and ensure that technology strengthens rather than replaces professional judgment and the human dimensions of education.

You use both quantitative and qualitative methods in your research. What are your tips for editors handling manuscripts that feature mixed-method approaches?

For editors handling mixed-methods manuscripts, I believe the first question should be whether the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches is genuinely justified by the research problem. A strong mixed-methods study should do more than place two separate methodological components side by side; there should be a clear rationale for using both, and the integration of the findings should contribute something that neither approach could provide on its own.

Editors also need to assess each methodological component according to appropriate standards. The quantitative strand should demonstrate sound measurement, sampling, analysis, and interpretation, while the qualitative strand should show transparency in participant selection, data collection, analysis, and the development of interpretations. At the same time, the editor should pay particular attention to how the two strands are integrated and whether the conclusions reflect the combined evidence.

Reviewer selection is especially important in this type of manuscript. It may be more useful to seek complementary methodological expertise rather than expecting one reviewer to be equally specialized in every aspect of the study. When reviewers differ in their assessments, the editor has an important role in distinguishing substantive methodological concerns from differences in methodological preference and in ensuring that the final decision remains fair, proportionate, and focused on the quality of the research.

What do you find most rewarding about guiding a manuscript from initial submission to final publication as a PLOS One Academic Editor? What are some of the challenges?

One of the most rewarding aspects of serving as an Academic Editor is seeing a manuscript become stronger through a rigorous and constructive peer-review process. The editor has an important responsibility in bringing together appropriate reviewers, identifying the issues that genuinely affect the quality and credibility of the research, and helping ensure that authors receive feedback that is both rigorous and constructive.

I also value the opportunity to contribute to a fair and evidence-based editorial process. Good editorial work, in my view, is not simply about accepting or rejecting a manuscript; it involves making balanced judgments about the appropriateness of the research design, the quality of the evidence, the transparency of the reporting, and whether the conclusions are adequately supported.

The challenges are equally important. Finding suitable and available reviewers can sometimes be difficult, particularly for interdisciplinary or methodologically complex manuscripts. Reviews may also differ substantially in their recommendations, and the editor must determine which concerns are essential and which reflect differences in preference. Another challenge is balancing rigor with timeliness while avoiding unnecessary requests for revisions that go beyond what is needed to address the research question. For me, the most effective editorial decisions are those that protect scientific standards while keeping the review process constructive, focused, and fair to authors.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.

The post Editorial Spotlight: Yasser F. Hendawy Al-Mahdy appeared first on EveryONE.

Psychology leading the way

The theme of the conference was “Lead Through Change”, and this sentiment was iterated powerfully by APA President Wendi S. Williams in her opening plenary session on the first morning of the conference: “I want you to connect with one another, be reminded of our shared power when we stand together. There are as many reasons to give up as there are to fight – for our vision for the field of psychology, for what our ethics require, for what the people need. And you are the reason it keeps moving. Not the institutions. Not the funding. But you.” Such powerful calls to action were a resounding theme throughout the sessions in the days to follow, reflecting a committed determination among speakers to drive change and demonstrate leadership through psychological research. 

Diversity and AI take the spotlight

Keynote sessions and symposia highlighted recurring themes of AI, ethics, and diversity, with speakers not only being leaders in their field but powerful orators with the ability to motivate and inspire attendees. Panel discussions brought together a range of perspectives and views from experts in the field, which was particularly valuable during discussions of controversial and evolving topics. Although consideration of the topics was largely discussed within the context of upholding APA principles, follow-up discussions (both formal and informal) made it clear that such conversations extended beyond the organisation itself as well. 

A unique and timely focus of the convention was on the topic of diversity and intersectionality. In addition to smaller sessions on topics such as “Equity in Publishing” and “Framing Diversity as Threat: Pathways to Authoritarianism”, a highlight of the conference was a keynote address and conversation on intersectionality featuring Lisa Bowleg, PhD, MA, the founder and CEO of the Intersectionality Training Institute and Kimberlé Crenshaw, JD, pioneering legal scholar and civil rights advocate best known for bringing the term ‘intersectionality’ into the larger public sphere. The session was an inspiring and rousing one, as both speakers discussed the urgency for modern psychology to not only address but advocate for issues surrounding systematic inequalities, both in research and in practice. 

OpenAI was a sponsor of this year’s conference, and the presence of AI was a recurring theme throughout sessions and discussions at the conference, from resources for psychologists in interacting with AI resources in their work to its wider ethical and practical implications for the field and society at large. These were highlighted in plenary sessions such as “The Human Side of AI” and “Unintended Ethical Consequences of AI Adoption”, in which speakers discussed the urgent need for ethical considerations as educational and organizational settings increasingly undergo AI integration. Speakers presented various scenarios in educational and institutional settings in which AI already plays a prominent role, highlighting informed consent challenges, data privacy protection, and the need to safeguard vulnerable populations during institutional AI adoption.

Challenges and benefits of aging

At the Main Stage Headline event “The Aging Paradox: Change, Growth, and Psychology’s Essential Role”, experts in the field of aging participated in a panel conversation discussing the so-called ‘paradox’ of aging: while aging is associated with real cognitive and physical challenges, older adults also often report greater emotional well-being, and deeper satisfaction than younger people. Moreover, recent advances have suggested that the brain is not limited to decline with aging, but can actually reorganize and refine itself in response to enriching environments.

Yaakov Stern, PhD, of Columbia University discussed how older adults who take up new skills, keep active social circles, and show variety in their hobbies and exercises, show evidence of boosting memory and attention to levels beyond their counterparts who don’t engage in such activities, sometimes even to levels of people decades younger. However, the panel also noted that opportunities for aging well are not necessarily distributed equally well in society. Crucial remarks from Tanisha Hill-Jarrett, PhD, from University of California San Francisco, and Daniel Jimenez, PhD, University of Miami, discussed how socioeconomic status is a strong predictor of successful aging, and that structural disadvantages have the potential to set people at different strata of society on different lifecourse trajectories, impacting their ability to age well. 

The next generation of psychologists

Early-career researchers and graduate – and sometimes even undergraduate – students stepped into the spotlight during the poster sessions which were organised by division across the days, with multiple divisions grouped together. Despite the limited allotted timeslots, presenters often ended up arriving early and staying later to accommodate further discussions on their poster. Sessions were highly diverse and topics were often repeated across the conference days; unsurprising given the sheer breadth of work represented. Attendance at the sessions was consistently high and rows were often crowded with both presenters and attendees engaging in animated discussion. 

The presenters appeared to take the organisation’s mission statement of “Advancing psychology to benefit society and improve lives” to heart, appearing particularly attuned to the present social and political climate when discussing and situating their work, displaying a keen knowledge of rapid developments in their field and the ability to connect them to the pervasive themes of AI, diversity, and ethics present throughout the conference.

Open science and the future of psychological research

Throughout the meeting, there was a clear commitment to open science practices and wide research dissemination in psychology, reflecting the discipline’s heightened focus on reproducibility. Key aspects like preregistration and open data sharing featured prominently in discussions, and many attendees spoke enthusiastically about the ability of these methodologies to help accelerate the exchange of scientific knowledge within academia as well as the general public. 

In addition to APA’s ongoing dedication to rigour and transparency in psychological research, this year’s convention was marked by its particular attention to platforming invigorated discussions of equity and diversity, in both experimental and clinical settings. The sheer breadth of topics represented at the conference reflected an active and engaged scientific community that is not only producing compelling science, but also passing such knowledge and enthusiasm on to the next generation of psychologists. APA 2027 will be held in San Francisco, CA.

The post Leading through unity and change: APA 2026 appeared first on EveryONE.

The Anthropocene is a geological epoch defined by human actions changing Earth’s processes and ecosystems [1]. This research theme is diverse, encompassing research across the sciences and at varying scales; from the individual species level to global populations and across timescales of decades to hundreds of years. PLOS One authors have been sharing their research on the diverse and varying magnitude of environmental change across the Anthropocene, with the number of publications growing over the last 20 years. Here we highlight some of the research published in PLOS One since 2008 that celebrates the diversity of research happening to understand environmental change in the Anthropocene.

What is changing?

Many publications have focused on the changing ranges and behaviours of particular species. Delzon and colleagues investigated the colonization of the Holm Oak in the Mediterranean between 1880 and 2010, concluding that under projected climate change its range would spread northwards. Crop diversity has changed too, Martin et al.,(2019) found the 1970-80s to be a period where there were substantial increases in taxonomic- and phylogenetic diversity of crops grown almost everywhere, globally. 

In the animal kingdom, Huertas et al., (2021) looked into changes in predation on coral reefs. They found that their study site on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, lost two thirds of its live coral cover between 2008 and 2018, whereas the relative proportion of Porites (hard coral type), tripled. At the same time, predation from parrotfish remained relatively stable. In 2008, Huntley et al., demonstrated that the potential impact of climate change on European birds could result in a rapid, high magnitude, displacement of birds generally northwards. These studies highlight just some of the ways species are adapting to the pressures of a changing environment. 

These changes pose risk and impact for people too. In 2021, Marcantonio et al., investigated pollution, climate and health risk in the Anthropocene. Their study showed that low-income countries are faced with higher risks than high-income countries from toxic pollution and climate change. They also proposed a Target assessment tool to assist decision-makers in where best to address pollution, based on the need to minimize human suffering and have maximum impact.

 A longer perspective:

Research that looks at changes through time helps in our understanding of the scale and rate of impacts. Pluckhahn and Thulman (2024) used historical records to understand manatee populations in Florida. This revealed that populations were very small in Precolonial and Colonial Periods before their range and number expanded. It is suggested that the expansions follow increasing human populations and the associated landscape, social and policy changes. The study considered what a historical baseline should be and how the human impacts that led to the species expansion, are now those that put it at risk. 

Future thinking:

As society comes to learn of the impacts of anthropogenic climate and environmental change, work also focuses on how we can best conserve and adapt to our changing environment. Dempsey (2021) considered the role of rewilding in conservation in the UK by comparing a more traditional nature conservation project and the Knepp Estate rewilding project. The study concluded that rewilding involves reconsidering the amount of human control over a landscape and the work goes on to be discussed in ‘Defining Rewilding for Scotland’s Public Sector’.

This is where larger scale studies are valuable. In Rocha et al’s 2015 work they conducted a comparative analysis of 25 generic types of regime shifts across marine, terrestrial and polar systems to identify their drivers, and impacts on ecosystem services in an attempt to systematically assess the global risk of regime shifts. Whilst they found the interconnectedness of varying regime shifts increased risk of cascading regime shift they also highlighted the opportunity to reduce risk. As regime shift drivers are present at a variety of scales, addressing local or regional regime shift drivers still has the opportunity to reduce the risk of regime shifts even when the reduction in global drivers is absent. Their work goes on to be cited in numerous policy papers that discuss resilience, sustainability and nature economics. 

Research on environmental change in the Anthropocene is wide ranging from reporting changing ecologies and species distributions, to discussions on the impact on society, as reflected in the multi-disciplinary work highlighted here. PLOS One research in this area has gone beyond the article, having been discussed in the news and used to inform policy discussions, translating academic research into real world actions. 

References

[1] Rocha JC, Peterson GD, Biggs R (2015) Regime Shifts in the Anthropocene: Drivers, Risks, and Resilience. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0134639. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134639 

Delzon S, Urli M, Samalens J-C, Lamy J-B, Lischke H, Sin F, et al. (2013) Field Evidence of Colonisation by Holm Oak, at the Northern Margin of Its Distribution Range, during the Anthropocene Period. PLoS ONE 8(11): e80443. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080443   

Martin AR, Cadotte MW, Isaac ME, Milla R, Vile D, Violle C (2019) Regional and global shifts in crop diversity through the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0209788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209788  

Huertas V, Morais RA, Bonaldo RM, Bellwood DR (2021) Parrotfish corallivory on stress-tolerant corals in the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 16(9): e0250725. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250725 

Huntley B, Collingham YC, Willis SG, Green RE (2008) Potential Impacts of Climatic Change on European Breeding Birds. PLoS ONE 3(1): e1439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001439 

Marcantonio R, Javeline D, Field S, Fuentes A (2021) Global distribution and coincidence of pollution, climate impacts, and health risk in the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 16(7): e0254060. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254060 

Pluckhahn TJ, Thulman DK (2024) Historical ecology reveals the “surprising” direction and extent of shifting baselines for the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostis). PLoS ONE 19(11): e0313070. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313070 

Dempsey B (2021) Everything under control? Comparing Knepp Estate rewilding project with ‘traditional’ nature conservation. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0241160. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241160 

Waylen, K.A. and Marshall, A. (2023) Defining Rewilding for Scotland’s Public 

Sector. Scottish Government Riaghaltas na h-Alba. https://www.gov.scot/publications/defining-rewilding-scotlands-public-sector/documents/ 

The post Environmental change in the Anthropocene appeared first on EveryONE.

As telemedicine becomes more ubiquitous in healthcare across the globe, so has research evaluating these interventions. From 2011 to 2025, PLOS One has published an increasing volume of telemedicine manuscripts over time. During this period, there were 1,955 telemedicine manuscripts published, amassing over 56,500 citations. Notably, we have seen an acceleration of telemedicine utilization and telemedicine research post-COVID-19. (Figure 1) (1).

In this blog, we highlight a subset of PLOS One articles published between 2011 and 2025 that emphasize the benefits and challenges that arise when implementing telemedicine. These publications offer practical solutions to improve and evaluate telemedicine interventions with the goal of expanding access to care and health equity among vulnerable communities. Furthermore, the articles underscore the necessity of having health equity and sustainability at the forefront of design, telemedicine policy, and telemedicine implementation efforts. Please enjoy this collection of articles. 

Figure 1: Number of telemedicine publications at PLOS One from 2011 to 2025.This figure was generated using data obtained on June 11, 2026, from Digital Science’s Dimensions platform, available at https://app.dimensions.ai.

Maternal telehealth care may benefit more from basic digital infrastructure than sophisticated technological solutions

When examining the landscape of information and communication technologies in Latin American and Caribbean countries, Capasso and colleagues identified disparities in access to digital health persist in remote and rural communities particularly, with limitations in digital infrastructure (2). The main facilitators in adoption of digital health were provider training and availability of adequate equipment, internet, and technology. Often, telemedicine is thought to require complex digital platforms to increase healthcare access, but this study suggests that investing in universal digital coverage may be a more sustainable solution to improve telehealth access for reproductive care in remote and rural communities.

Telemedicine improves access to health information while improving patient satisfaction during routine HIV care

As new tools and interventions in telemedicine are developed, there is a need to evaluate their efficacy compared to standard care alone. In their mixed methods clinical trial from 2011, León and colleagues evaluated a telemedicine tool their team created, Virtual Hospital platform, which includes virtual consultations, telepharmacy, a virtual library and virtual community (3). While clinical and quality of life parameters were similar between those with the telemedicine intervention and those without the intervention, there was high technical satisfaction among users and providers, giving patients direct access to their medical results and health information. This forward-thinking clinical trial demonstrates how telemedicine can be used to improve access to providers, resources, and medical information at a time when individual internet access and the movement towards electronic health records was increasing globally.

COVID-19 illustrates the importance of considering health equity when implementing telemedicine

With the roll-out of telemedicine, it is vital to evaluate equitable access across different populations, especially during a pandemic. Here Khatana and colleagues utilized real-world data to identify patterns in sociodemographic characteristics of patients who had at least one telemedicine encounter during the study period (4). They identified that there were differences in utilization across different sub-groups, with lower odds of receiving telemedicine among older, male, and non-Hispanic Black patients. These findings help us understand disparities in access across different groups and in different regions, which can be leveraged to improve equitable availability of telemedicine by targeting intervention efforts.

Telephone support and telemonitoring significantly reduced the odds of deaths and hospitalization due to heart failure compared to usual care

With the growth of telemedicine research, systematic reviews can be a valuable tool to evaluate telemedicine interventions. In their systematic review, Kotb and colleagues compare the impact of different telemedicine options for heart failure (5). Specifically, the authors compared telephone support, telemonitoring, video monitoring or electrocardiographic monitoring among patients with heart failure. Synthesizing the findings of 30 randomized controlled trials, they found that telephone support and telemonitoring significantly reduced the odds of deaths and hospitalization due to heart failure compared to usual care. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis manuscripts, such as the one described here, help lawmakers assess the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes to generate policy and direct implementation efforts. This work has been cited in several policy documents generated by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (6-7).

References

1. Digital Science. (2018–). Dimensions [Software]. Available from https://app.dimensions.ai. Accessed on June 11th, 2026. 

2. Capasso A, Colomar M, Ramírez D, Serruya S, de Mucio B (2024) Digital health and the promise of equity in maternity care: A mixed methods multi-country assessment on the use of information and communication technologies in healthcare facilities in Latin America and the Caribbean. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0298902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298902

3. León A, Cáceres C, Fernández E, Chausa P, Martin M, Codina C, et al. (2011) A New Multidisciplinary Home Care Telemedicine System to Monitor Stable Chronic Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients: A Randomized Study. PLoS ONE 6(1): e14515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014515

4. Khatana SAM, Yang L, Eberly LA, Julien HM, Adusumalli S, Groeneveld PW (2022) Predictors of telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States–an analysis of a national electronic medical record database. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269535. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269535

5. Kotb A, Cameron C, Hsieh S, Wells G (2015) Comparative Effectiveness of Different Forms of Telemedicine for Individuals with Heart Failure (HF): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0118681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118681

6. Meneses-Echavez, J. F., Johansen, T. B., Holte, H. H., Harboe, I., Underland, V., & Zinöcker, S. (2022). Remote patient monitoring and resource use in the specialized health service: An overview of systematic reviews (revised edition). Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

7. OECD (2023), Integrating Care to Prevent and Manage Chronic Diseases: Best Practices in Public Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9acc1b1d-en. 

The post Telemedicine Research Highlights: Advancing Access and Equity in Patient Care appeared first on EveryONE.

Over the past 20 years, her research has examined the relationship between brain function, cognition, emotion, and human behavior. Combining behavioral and cognitive assessment with EEG, event-related potentials, and non-invasive brain stimulation—including TMS, tDCS, and tACS—she investigates the mechanisms underlying neuroplasticity and clinical response.

Her work aims to translate experimental neuroscience into personalized interventions by identifying markers that can guide stimulation targets, parameters, timing, and integration with cognitive and behavioral therapies. She has applied this approach to obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, chronic pain, major depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and stroke.

As a researcher, you have extensive experience with neuromodulation interventions to improve mental health and cognitive function, which is such an exciting and rapidly evolving field. What do you see as the biggest promise for this therapeutic approach, and what are the biggest challenges?

Over the past 19 years, I have worked with neuromodulation techniques in both research and clinical contexts. Throughout this journey, I have become increasingly convinced of two things: neuromodulation can produce meaningful effects, but the response is also profoundly individual. Even among people with the same diagnosis, we observe considerable variability in the magnitude, timing, and duration of the response. This is understandable because no two brains—and no two personal or clinical histories—are exactly alike. Factors such as baseline brain activity, previous experiences, disease trajectory, concurrent treatments, and the individual’s cognitive and emotional state may all influence how the brain responds to stimulation.

State dependency is particularly important. The effect of stimulation depends not only on where and how we stimulate, but also on the functional state of the brain at that particular moment. This means that we cannot continue to assume that the same dose and stimulation parameters will be appropriate for every patient. We need to understand the appropriate intensity, duration, frequency, and repetition of the dose; how many sessions are required; whether and when maintenance or booster sessions are needed; and, crucially, when stimulation should be stopped.

This final question is especially important because more stimulation is not necessarily better. Plasticity is not always adaptive, and stimulation may interact with homeostatic and metaplastic mechanisms in complex ways. One of the field’s central challenges will therefore be to identify the optimal therapeutic window: the point at which stimulation promotes learning and functional reorganization without becoming unnecessary, ineffective, or potentially counterproductive. We need to determine not only the optimal duration of each stimulation session, but also the ideal interval for rest and consolidation between sessions, the number of treatment cycles required, and the timing of any subsequent reinforcement. The brain has a natural tendency to return to previously established patterns of functioning, so inducing an immediate change is not sufficient. We must learn how to consolidate that change and support long-term learning.

Another phenomenon that has particularly captured my attention is the delayed response to treatment. In my work with people with major depression and chronic pain, I have observed that improvement does not always occur during the treatment period itself. With tDCS, for example, some patients may show a clearer response only a few days or after the stimulation sessions have ended. This raises important scientific and clinical questions. If outcomes are assessed too early, we may incorrectly classify someone as a non-responder. We therefore need to understand the trajectories of response more fully and identify which patients are likely to respond immediately, gradually, or only after a delay.

One of neuromodulation’s greatest strengths is that it is not only a therapeutic intervention, but also a powerful tool for studying the brain. By influencing the activity of specific regions and distributed networks, techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial electrical stimulation allow us to investigate causal relationships between brain activity, cognition, emotion, and behavior. Repeated stimulation may also support functional—and potentially structural—plasticity, making it especially promising for neurorehabilitation. The objective is not simply to modulate a circuit or reduce a symptom, but to help the brain reorganize and strengthen adaptive patterns that support meaningful and lasting functional recovery.

I therefore believe that the future lies in personalized, state-dependent, and adaptive neuromodulation. Open-loop systems deliver stimulation according to parameters established in advance, without continuously considering the brain’s ongoing state. Closed-loop systems can instead use real-time information from EEG, event-related potentials, fMRI, or other physiological and behavioral measures to determine when and how stimulation should be delivered. These systems could eventually help us deliver the right intervention, at the right dose, to the right neural target, and at the right moment for each person.

This possibility has been a longstanding focus of our research. In 2017, we reported a proof-of-concept surface EEG–tDCS closed-loop system in humans, in which an algorithm detected predefined changes in EEG activity and successfully triggered stimulation. More recently, we investigated individually tailored transcranial alternating current stimulation using each participant’s endogenous event-related P3 response. The stimulation frequency and task timing were adjusted to individual electrophysiological characteristics, illustrating how neural markers might be used to align stimulation with the cognitive process we aim to modulate.

The remaining challenges are substantial. We need reliable biomarkers, robust real-time signal processing, reproducible algorithms, and larger, adequately powered clinical trials. We also need longer follow-up periods that can capture immediate, gradual, and delayed responses. Most importantly, we must establish whether neurophysiological changes translate into durable improvements in everyday functioning and quality of life. For me, the central promise of neuromodulation is therefore not simply our increasing ability to stimulate the brain. It is our growing capacity to listen to the brain, understand its individual dynamics, and adapt our interventions accordingly to promote effective and lasting rehabilitation.

What aspects of Open Science do you feel are most important in your field, and where do you see the next steps for openness in this research area?

For me, the most important principle of Open Science is transparency across the entire research cycle. This is particularly critical in neuromodulation because results can be influenced by numerous methodological decisions: the stimulation target, intensity, duration, frequency, electrode or coil placement, number and spacing of sessions, the brain state during stimulation, concurrent interventions, participant characteristics, outcome selection, and analytical strategy. If these decisions are not described fully, it becomes difficult to interpret a study, reproduce its methods, or understand why apparently similar protocols produce different findings.

We are currently witnessing an unprecedented acceleration in scientific publication. Rapid dissemination can be extremely valuable, particularly when it facilitates timely access to new knowledge and encourages collaboration. However, speed and volume do not necessarily equate to scientific progress. The pressure to publish quickly can contribute to fragmented studies, small samples, insufficient methodological detail, selective outcome reporting, and conclusions that extend beyond the evidence. Findings may circulate widely before they have been adequately scrutinized or independently replicated. Open access to an article is important, but making a publication freely available does not, by itself, make the underlying research transparent, reproducible, or methodologically robust.

Open Science should help address these problems. Prospective trial registration, preregistration of hypotheses and primary outcomes, publication of detailed protocols and statistical analysis plans, and the use of Registered Reports can make the distinction between confirmatory and exploratory analyses clearer. They can also reduce undisclosed methodological flexibility and selective reporting. In clinical research, changes from a registered protocol are sometimes necessary, but they should be explained transparently. Equally important is the publication of negative, null, and unexpected findings. If we publish only positive results, we create a distorted evidence base, overestimate treatment effects, and risk unnecessarily exposing additional participants to interventions or research questions that have already been investigated.

Transparency is also essential when reporting the intervention itself. Neuromodulation studies should provide sufficient information about stimulation parameters, equipment, electrode or coil positioning, dose, treatment schedule, concurrent tasks, adverse events, and participant characteristics to allow other groups to understand and reproduce the protocol. Access to de-identified data, analysis code, computational models, and methodological materials can further support verification, secondary analysis, and collaboration. The FAIR principles—making research outputs findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable—provide an important framework for this work.

Nevertheless, openness also requires careful judgment. Clinical, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological datasets may contain highly sensitive or potentially identifiable information. Responsible data sharing cannot mean placing all data online without adequate safeguards. It must be supported by appropriate informed consent, ethical oversight, careful de-identification, secure repositories, controlled-access procedures when necessary, and recognition of the communities and researchers who generated the data. We must also avoid creating a model of Open Science that benefits primarily well-resourced institutions while transferring the work and risks of data production to less-resourced researchers or clinical populations. Appropriate attribution, reciprocity, and equitable opportunities for collaboration are fundamental.

The next step is therefore to embed openness into the design of research rather than treating it as an administrative task at the point of publication. This means planning for transparency, reproducibility, and responsible data sharing before recruitment begins. It also means harmonizing methods and outcome measures across laboratories, supporting multicenter studies and independent replication, involving patients in defining meaningful outcomes, and rewarding researchers for sharing protocols, datasets, code, and rigorous negative findings—not only for producing novel positive results.

I am strongly supportive of Open Science, but I believe we must adopt a substantive rather than superficial definition of openness. Open Science should not simply help us publish more, or publish faster. It should allow us to understand precisely how knowledge was produced, assess its limitations, test whether findings are reproducible, and ensure that publicly available evidence is sufficiently reliable to inform future research and, ultimately, clinical care. Its real value lies in making science not only more accessible, but also more rigorous, accountable, inclusive, and trustworthy.

As an Academic Editor for PLOS ONE, you have facilitated fair and thorough peer review processes and thoughtfully handled research reporting the results of clinical trials, which provide crucial clinically relevant information that can impact health care decisions. How do you approach evaluating these manuscripts and overseeing peer review?

 Throughout my career, I have served extensively as both an editor and a reviewer, handling or reviewing several hundred manuscripts. This experience has reinforced my awareness of the responsibility involved: editorial decisions must be independent, transparent, consistent, and based on the quality of the research rather than on the authors’ institution, seniority, country, or the direction of the results.

When evaluating a clinical-trial manuscript, I begin with the integrity of the study. I examine whether the research question is clearly defined and clinically relevant, whether the design and sample size are appropriate, and whether ethical approval, informed consent, and prospective trial registration are documented. I compare the reported primary and secondary outcomes with the trial registration and protocol and assess the statistical methods, participant flow, missing data, protocol deviations, adverse events, and potential sources of bias. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT are extremely valuable, but completing a checklist cannot replace careful scientific and ethical judgment.

I also consider whether the interpretation is proportionate to the evidence. Statistical significance is not the same as clinical relevance, and a non-significant result does not necessarily mean that a study is uninformative. Effect sizes, uncertainty, potential harms, study limitations, and generalizability must all be considered. This is especially important in clinical research because overstated conclusions can influence subsequent studies, clinical expectations, and potentially health care decisions.

For peer review, I try to select reviewers with complementary expertise—for example, in the clinical condition, the intervention, trial methodology, or statistical analysis—while carefully considering independence and potential conflicts of interest. I look for reviews that are rigorous, constructive, and focused on matters that genuinely affect the validity, transparency, or interpretation of the study.

My role as an editor is not simply to count positive and negative recommendations. Reviewers may reasonably emphasize different aspects of a manuscript or offer conflicting advice. I evaluate each report critically, distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions, reconcile contradictory recommendations, and communicate a clear and fair path forward to the authors. Even when a manuscript cannot be accepted, I believe the decision should be respectful, transparent, and clearly supported by scientific reasoning.

Ultimately, I aim to ensure that well-conducted studies are evaluated fairly regardless of whether their findings are positive, negative, or unexpected. For me, the central questions are whether the research was conducted ethically, whether the methods and reporting are sufficiently rigorous and transparent, and whether the conclusions are genuinely supported by the evidence.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.

The post Editorial Spotlight: Sandra Carvalho appeared first on EveryONE.

Why is your research on social inequalities in education important to you?

Education is often presented as the great equalizer, and I have always been struck by how rarely that promise survives close scrutiny of the data. I came to the subject through tuition fees, during my PhD: I wanted to understand how their introduction affects access, trajectories and success in higher education.

Since then, I have gradually widened the lens, both upstream and downstream of that first object: I have looked at trajectories from secondary school onwards, at the role of private schooling and at the effects of grade retention. I have also studied how the COVID-19 pandemic weighed on students’ learning and educational choices, as well as on university dropout and entry into the labor market. Most recently, a seemingly distant field, urban mobility policies, brought me back to school: in Milan, the “Area C” limited traffic zone, by reducing pollution in the city center, improved the academic performance of elementary school students, and first and foremost those from disadvantaged backgrounds. A traffic policy that reduces learning inequalities: it says a great deal about how much educational inequalities also play out outside school.

Ultimately, all these objects tell the same story: education is never a single event, and a trajectory is shaped by the accumulation, year after year, of small advantages and small disadvantages.

As part of a multinational research project, what advice would you give other researchers about collaboration?

I am currently a co-investigator on LINEup, a Horizon Europe project that brings together 14 partners across 6 countries and examines how educational inequalities are built up over the course of school trajectories. The project has two strands: a quantitative one, based on harmonized longitudinal data to compare the mechanisms through which inequalities are reproduced across countries, and a qualitative one carried out in schools, whose design I led.

In a project like this, the first difficulty is not statistical: educational inequalities do not have the same drivers in France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal or Spain. School systems differ, so do the data, and even the categories used to record a student’s background. My advice would therefore be to spend, right from the start, far more time than you would like agreeing on definitions and on what is genuinely comparable, and to fully involve the non-academic partners, those who produce or administer school data as well as those who work with schools on a daily basis. Comparability is built, not assumed.

You also write for the public. Why do you think it’s important for researchers to communicate with wider audiences?

Much of my research bears on very real policy choices. How should higher education be funded, and who should pay for it: the student, their family, the taxpayer? How did the pandemic weigh on students’ learning and choices, all the way to their trajectories at university? What place should private schools have when they contribute to school segregation? These are not abstract questions: societies answer them constantly, through their public policies. On these subjects, everyone has an opinion, and legitimately so: school is an experience everyone has been through, and one that many live through again with their children. But the gap between what we think we know and what the data show can be considerable.

Research does not settle the debate; it at least allows it to start from the right facts. That is what drives me to write for the general public as well. There is, first, an obvious point: this research is funded by public money, and people are entitled to know what it finds. But there is also something else: getting to the core of a result, stripping away the jargon, and then watching it take on a life of its own as it gets picked up in a debate, cited in a report, and sometimes weighs on a public decision. That is one of the things that give this job its meaning.

What motivates you to serve as an Academic Editor at PLOS One, and how does this experience complement your work as a researcher?

What drew me to PLOS One is its editorial principle: judging a manuscript on the soundness of the research, not on the novelty of the result. In my discipline, applied economics, many important questions call for nuanced answers, modest effects, sometimes no effect at all. Such results are valuable, for knowledge and for public decision-making alike, yet they struggle to find a home in more selective journals.

On a more personal level, handling manuscripts well outside my own specialty keeps me reading widely, and regularly confronts me with methods and literatures I would never have encountered otherwise. What I enjoy most in this role is supporting authors: finding the right reviewers, those whose comments will genuinely move a manuscript forward, and then watching a paper grow stronger at each stage of the process. The manuscripts I have handled have also taught me a great deal: managing conflicting reviews, distinguishing differences of judgment from genuine methodological concerns; upholding publication ethics; working to tight deadlines. And as an author, I know what waiting costs: I try to make clear and prompt decisions, while paying particular attention to early-career researchers and non-native English speakers.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.

The post Editorial Spotlight: Léonard Moulin appeared first on EveryONE.

My advice is to treat AI as a tool that can support judgment but never substitute for it. The value an editor or reviewer brings is accountability, a person willing to stand behind an assessment.

Your research lies at the intersection of technology and societal challenges. What draws you to this field?

What draws me to this space is that the most consequential questions about technology are rarely technical. They are questions about institutions, incentives, and behavior. My research sits in computational social science and spans AI governance, LLM behavior, platform dynamics, and organizational theory, and the common thread is trying to understand how algorithmic systems reshape the social structures they are embedded in, often in ways their designers never intended.

Concretely, that has meant studying things like how generative AI may shift the stratification of science itself, how misinformation gains persuasive power precisely when it contains authentic fragments of truth, and how large language models behave when placed in evaluative roles that carry real consequences for people. These are problems where you cannot make progress from a purely engineering perspective or a purely social science perspective. You need both, and that intersection is where I find the work most alive.

As a PLOS One Academic Editor, you provide thorough feedback to authors in your decision letters. What is your approach to evaluating manuscripts and crafting those decisions?

My guiding principle is that a decision letter should be useful to the authors regardless of the outcome. PLOS One‘s model, which centers on soundness rather than perceived novelty or importance, makes this easier in some ways: my job is to assess whether the claims are supported by the evidence, whether the methods are adequate and transparently reported, and whether the inferential leaps are earned. So I try to be diagnostic rather than evaluative in tone. Instead of saying an analysis is unconvincing, I try to say exactly why and what evidence or robustness check would change my mind.

I also try to be honest about severity. Not every concern is fatal, and I think it helps authors enormously when an editor clearly distinguishes among issues that must be resolved, issues that would strengthen the paper, and issues that are matters of taste. As an author with my own share of revision experiences, I know how demoralizing a vague or internally contradictory decision letter can be. I would rather write a longer, more direct letter that gives authors a clear path forward than a polite one that leaves them guessing.

What are the challenges editors face around the use of AI in peer review? What is your advice to them?

This question sits close to my own research. One of my current projects examines whether large language models act as fairer judges in peer review or whether they reproduce and even amplify status biases, the Matthew Effect, where established names receive more favorable evaluations. Based on this, I see two challenges for editors. First, detection: AI-assisted or AI-generated reviews are increasingly difficult to identify, and detection tools are unreliable. Second, calibration: AI-generated feedback tends to sound authoritative and comprehensive, yet sometimes misses what actually matters in a paper or, worse, fabricates concerns.

My advice is to treat AI as a tool that can support judgment but never substitute for it. The value an editor or reviewer brings is accountability, a person willing to stand behind an assessment. I would also encourage editors to be transparent with their communities about what uses of AI are acceptable and which are not, because ambiguity is where most problems start. And finally, stay curious rather than defensive. These tools will keep improving, and the editors best positioned to protect the integrity of the review are those who understand what the technology can and cannot do.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.

The post Editorial Spotlight: Carlos Carrasco appeared first on EveryONE.

This blog was written by PLOS One Associate Editor Sarah Jose, who attended Evolution x Ecology 2026.

Evolution x Ecology 2026, held at the University of Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall, UK, brought together researchers working across the interface of evolutionary biology and ecology for a week of talks, posters, workshops, and community-building discussions. PLOS was delighted to sponsor the meeting, and PLOS One Associate Editor Sarah Jose attended to connect with the evolutionary ecology community and learn more about emerging research in the field.

Throughout the conference, it was clear that understanding evolution and ecology in natural systems increasingly depends on collaboration, long-running datasets, methodological openness, and research that can be built upon over time. These priorities strongly resonate with PLOS’ commitments to open science and to supporting rigorous accessible research.

A new meeting for the evolutionary ecology community

Evolution x Ecology 2026 was designed as a focussed space for researchers working at the eco-evolutionary interface, welcoming 230 participants from 25 countries and creating fantastic opportunities for researchers at different career stages to share ideas and build connections.

The breadth of the programme reflected the diversity of evolutionary ecology today. Talks and posters spanned wild animal microbiomes, host–parasite dynamics, ageing, sociality, behavioural ecology, climate change, conservation, genetics, epigenetics, and the ecological processes that shape evolutionary change.

The power of long-term studies

Many presentations highlighted the extraordinary value of long-term population studies. Research drawing on decades of data from wild populations showed how repeated measurements, archived samples, and careful field observations can reveal patterns that would otherwise remain hidden. Long-running projects like the Wytham Tit Project in Oxfordshire (UK), the Soay Sheep project on St. Kilda (UK), the rhesus macaques project in Cayo Santiago (Puerto Rico), and the Tsaobis Baboon Project (Namibia) enable researchers to ask how genes, behaviour, environment, demographics, and selection interact across generations, and how ecological change shapes evolutionary trajectories over time.

These studies also demonstrated the lasting value of preserving data and samples for future use. Methods that were unavailable when some projects began are now allowing researchers to return to historical material with new questions, generating fresh insights into ageing, immunity, microbiomes, behaviour, and adaptation in natural populations.

Image: The Soay Sheep population in the St. Kilda archipelago, Scotland, UK, has been studied in detail for 41 years, giving great insights into aging, population dynamics, and the microbiome. Image credit: Tommy Rau. https://pixabay.com/images/download/tommy_rau-soay-sheep-7176565_1920.jpg

Evolution in a changing world

Climate change and environmental variability were central to many discussions. Speakers explored whether natural populations might adapt quickly enough to warming temperatures and changing ecological conditions, and how phenotypic plasticity, genetic variation, and conservation interventions may influence future outcomes.

Several talks emphasised that evolutionary and ecological responses rarely occur in isolation. Temperature, habitat, species interactions, pathogens, behaviour, and life history can all shape how organisms respond to change. This complexity makes integrative approaches essential, particularly for conservation questions where ecological urgency and evolutionary uncertainty often intersect.

Host–parasite dynamics, immunity, and ageing

Another recurring theme was the dynamic relationship between hosts, parasites, and immune systems. Presentations showed how host and pathogen populations can change together over time, with adaptive traits emerging, declining, or shifting as ecological conditions change. These eco-evolutionary feedbacks are especially powerful in wild systems, where selection pressures vary across seasons, years, and environments.

Ageing was also a prominent topic, including how senescence evolves in wild animals and how ageing can affect physiology, immunity, and fitness. Together, these sessions underscored the importance of studying organisms across their full lives and in the ecological contexts in which selection acts.

Image: Evolution x Ecology was held at the University of Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall, UK. Image credit: Sarah Jose.

Wild microbiomes and the holobiont

Wild animal microbiomes were strongly represented across the meeting, including in a dedicated pre-conference workshop on wild animal microbiome ecology and evolution. Discussions considered how microbiomes assemble, how they vary across individuals and environments, how they may influence host phenotypes, and how hosts and microbiomes might shape one another over evolutionary time.

The workshop also highlighted the methodological challenges of studying microbiomes in wild systems. Questions about causality, environmental variation, and scale are difficult to answer, but the field is advancing rapidly as researchers combine field ecology, molecular methods, comparative approaches, and evolutionary thinking.

Image: Blue tits in Wytham Woods, Oxfordshire, UK, are studied to answer questions about ageing, the genetics of behaviour, and the ecology of timing breeding in the spring. Image credit: Ralphs Fotos. https://pixabay.com/photos/blue-tit-songbird-bird-small-bird-4792149/

Behaviour, sociality, and ecological niches

Behavioural ecology was another major thread, with talks on traits such as exploration, aggression, migration, breeding phenology, co-operation, and sociality. Several presentations examined the genetic, epigenetic, and environmental drivers of behaviour, as well as the costs and benefits of social living.

Research on ecological niches also emphasised the need to move beyond single variables and consider multidimensional environments. Understanding specialisation, adaptation, and ecological opportunity requires attention to the many interacting factors that shape organisms’ lives.

Open science as shared infrastructure

From a PLOS perspective, one of the most striking aspects of the meeting was how naturally open science sat within the research culture of the community. Many studies depended on shared datasets, reusable code, archived samples, long-term collaborations, and transparent methods. These practices are not simply desirable additions to the research process; for many eco-evolutionary questions, they are essential infrastructure.

Open approaches allow researchers to build on work conducted across decades, compare findings across systems, and generate new insights as analytical methods develop. They also support reproducibility, visibility, and collaboration across disciplines and borders. These values are central to PLOS’ mission, and it was encouraging to see them reflected so strongly throughout the conference.

We were also pleased to share more about PLOS Ecosystems, which is now open for submissions and particularly relevant to many of the themes discussed at the conference.

Image:  PLOS was a proud sponsor of the Evolution x Ecology 2026 meeting. Image credit: Sarah Jose.

Building momentum for the future

Beyond the talks and posters, Evolution x Ecology 2026 created space for the community to consider its future. Workshops explored emerging research questions, interdisciplinary networks, publication and open science practices, quantitative genetics, behavioural analysis, and the formation of a new evolutionary ecology group. These activities reflected a community that is not only producing exciting science, but also thinking carefully about how to support collaboration, training, and shared priorities.

PLOS was proud to support Evolution x Ecology 2026 and grateful to the organisers, speakers, poster presenters, and attendees for such a thoughtful and engaging meeting. We look forward to continuing conversations with researchers working across evolution and ecology, and to supporting open and rigorous research that helps illuminate how life responds to ecological change.

The post From long-term field studies to wild microbiomes: themes from Evolution x Ecology 2026 appeared first on EveryONE.

With over 2400 attendees from more than 70 different countries, EACR 2026 showcased scientific excellence from diverse researchers who share the goal of accelerating progress against cancer. The scientific programme included high impact keynote lectures, symposia, poster sessions, early career scientist forums and dedicated industry workshops on new technologies, alongside an engaging “Meet the Editors” panel, and an evening networking session to encourage connection between attendees. Outside of the symposia, attendees were able to browse over 1300 posters, with dedicated time to speak to the presenting researchers and build new connections. EACR 2026 also hosted an extensive exhibition from over 120 vendors, spanning from contract research organizations and biotechnology companies to gene editing and model development outsource companies, to support research and display new technologies for the advancement of scientific research. Relevant cancer research organizations and publishers were also present, to discuss the focal themes of importance with the research community and to understand how to continue supporting the dissemination of their research findings.

A returning and central theme present through many sessions was the importance of the patient in cancer research, for those in pre-clinical and laboratory-based work as well as clinicians. In recent years there has been a growing dedication to patient-centric care in line with the World Cancer Day focus of the unique experiences of each individual with cancer. Marisol Soengas presented on the importance of patient involvement in cancer research, sharing her perspectives as both a cancer researcher and a patient. She is spear-heading the formation of the EACR patient involvement and outreach group to communicate science to patients, and to facilitate a forum for patient feedback, as her own experiences highlighted disparities between the clinically defined thresholds and what patients may truly consider tolerable treatment side effects. This exciting work includes a number of strategies to improve two-way communication with patient communities, and to consider how their input may influence the development of future policies. Cancer cachexia, a major challenge for patients which can directly impact quality of end of life experience was also threaded through the talks; Ayelet Erez presented work which demonstrates how early detection of patients at higher risk of developing cachexia may allow for earlier intervention, whilst Che Wei Wang demonstrated the ability of HP1α-overexpression to restore muscle function.

Declaration of the return, and planned retention, of the ‘bench to bedside and back’ session was met with enthusiasm, as this session explores the development of translational advances, their implementation in clinical settings, and the backwards flow of their clinical success to inform future research. This session included sharing challenges in the development of successful therapies, and reminded researchers to hold onto hope, because even failures can be crucial in discovering future success. Connection and collaboration were key themes in EACR’s program, with coffee breaks encouraging connectedness between attendees, and the introduction of a new EACR-Worldwide Cancer Research Collaboration Fellowships to support international research visits that grow out of connections made at the EACR Congress 2026 further supports this focus. The financial award is intended to nurture collaborations, whether the goal is to exchange skills and expertise, carry out a focused short-term project, or lay the groundwork for a joint grant. proposal.

The cancer prevention symposium included strong talks from researchers reflecting on successes and ongoing challenges in preventative strategies, including the funding barriers and feasibility of precision prevention programs. Timothy Beck discussed both population and precision based approaches to cancer prevention, reflecting on some successes (eg. smoking cessation campaigns and HPV vaccination) whilst considering the challenges of precision-based strategies, due to the latency for effect, the challenge defining endpoints (ie. the absence of cancer development), and the funding issues which prevention trials face. He also discussed recent advances in technologies, such as liquid biopsies and early multicancer detection strategies such as the Pathfinder-2 and NHS Galleri trials, and the challenges balancing commercial interests with prevention goals. Paolo Vines presented on cancer prevention in the context of planetary health, with conversation focused on how planetary boundaries of health can have implications for cancer risk, and strategies which reduce these burdens may be advantageous for both the planet and its human population. 

Caroline Dive outlined some of the obstacles of biomarker translation from discovery into clinical application, introducing many attendees to the so called “biomarker valley of death” which sits between publications of putative biomarkers and those which are actually implemented in clinical settings. She shared three success stories in biomarker identification and implementation, highlighting how improved understanding of cancer evolution can provide new translational opportunities for therapy development.

There was great diversity in the topics covered by symposia, with some themes continued from last years program, including brain tumors, genomic changes, the immune system in cancer, and cancer prevention. There were also new session themes which included novel cancer models in which there was great presentation of work across non-standard animal models, improving understanding of cancer prevention strategies across species, and comparing functions to better understand increased cancer risks. Impressive findings from sessions included novel autophagic processes which modulate micronuclei and potential chromosomal changes which may contribute to aberrant cellular processing and drive tumour formation or metastasis, generation of an organoid biobank which provides advances in ex vivo modelling from patient samples, and distinctions in cellular behaviour and physiological protective functions in young and aged populations which supports the need for personalised therapeutic approaches as cancer cell behaviour is distinct across different age groups.

The speakers in all sessions were passionate, knowledgable and enthusiastic in sharing their work. Whilst some gaps in our understanding of cancer remain, this community is excited and intrigued to keep finding pieces of the puzzle, to progress our understanding of cancer and the underlying cellular mechanisms which may inform future preventative and treatment strategies. From speaking to researchers, it was also clear that the exhibitors really listen to this community, and not only wish to promote their products and services but also to understand where there are gaps in their offerings. One such example is the unmet need for cancer cell lines to support improved understanding of the aggressiveness of prostate cancer in specific ethnicities, due to limited availability of relevant cancer cell lines from a European provider. This exhibitor positively responded to requests to improve and diversify their offerings, to meet researcher needs and better serve the cancer research community.

It was also very encouraging to see engagement with open science practices, including the use of pre-print servers, data repositories for data sharing and code sharing throughout the talks. As PLOS champions open science initiatives, it was encouraging to see the cancer research community value these practices to share their work. 

The post Connection and Collaboration at EACR 2026 appeared first on EveryONE.

Dr. Ling is currently a Principal Investigator at Fudan University. He received his B.S. from the School of Life Sciences at Fudan University in 2007. In 2011, he earned his Ph.D. in Medical Genetics from the University of Florida, after which he remained at UF as a Postdoctoral Associate, Research Assistant Professor, and Adjunct Research Associate Professor. His research focuses on gene therapy for genetic diseases and cancers, as well as virology. He serves as an Associate Editor for PLOS One, Molecular Therapy — Nucleic Acids and Frontiers in Pharmacology. He has received the Shanghai Sailing Program Award (2016) and was named an Oriental Scholar of Shanghai Universities (2016), with his appointment renewed under the Follow-up Program (2020). He has led three projects funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and one key research project of Shanghai, and has participated as a core member in three National Key R&D Programs of China. He has published over 40 SCI papers as first or corresponding author.

Your research interests are multidisciplinary, including traditional Chinese and Western medicine, biomedicine, and gene therapy. What are the most exciting topics and achievements in your field at the moment?

Currently, the most exciting direction in our field is achieving precise, inducible control of gene expression using rAAV vectors. One of our key achievements has been developing an iron-responsive gene expression system that allows targeted activation in hepatocytes. We have identified iron-responsive cis-elements and elucidated the underlying mechanism involving the rAAV 3′ end. Additionally, our recent work on capsid mutants that eliminate leaky expression from homologous recombination template represents a meaningful step forward. I am also excited by the growing integration of traditional Chinese medicine approaches with modern gene therapy, such as our findings on dihydroartemisinin reducing pre-existing AAV-neutralizing antibodies.

As an Academic Editor for PLOS One, could you describe your insights and experiences when handling manuscripts?

I have found serving as an Academic Editor for PLOS One to be a very positive experience. I particularly appreciate the journal’s commitment to evaluating manuscripts based on technical soundness rather than perceived novelty or impact. In handling manuscripts, I strive to be fair, constructive, and efficient. I carefully select reviewers with complementary expertise and pay close attention to when and why reviewer opinions diverge. My primary role, as I see it, is to ensure that the data presented adequately support the conclusions drawn, and that the methods are described with sufficient clarity for reproducibility.

Is there any advice you would give to authors submitting to the journal? What are the things you are looking out for when evaluating manuscripts?

I suggest avoiding overclaiming. Conclusions should be proportionate to the evidence. When evaluating a manuscript, I focus on whether the study design is appropriate, whether the controls are adequate, and whether the interpretation follows logically from the results.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.

The post Editorial Spotlight: Chen Ling appeared first on EveryONE.