From fungal partnerships in maize to RNA signalling in phloem sap, we celebrate the eighth international Fascination of Plants Day (18th May 2026) by exploring the stories behind some of the excellent plant science published in PLOS One. We spoke with several authors about the questions driving their research and what continues to fascinate them about plants.

Abigail Kropf, Iowa State University

Plant–microbe interactions are increasingly recognised as an important tool for sustainable agriculture. Dr. Abigail Kropf’s work explores how fungi traditionally studied as insect pathogens may also support plant growth.

Tell us about your recent work on insect pathogens promoting plant growth.

My recent paper, “Assessment of Beauveria bassiana as an Endophyte of Maize and its Effects on Plant Growth“, investigates the capacity for two Beauveria bassiana isolates, an insect pathogen, to grow endophytically in maize. I chose to study B. bassiana due to its significant potential in pest management against both plant pathogens and insect pests. 

Our findings demonstrate that after inoculating maize seeds, the fungi were successfully recovered in the roots, stems, and leaves. Additionally, we found that the fungi remained persistent within the plant growth media.

What fascinates you about plants?

I am fascinated by the complex interactions plants form within their environment, both in the soil and above ground. A key aspect of my research focuses on plant–microbe interactions and how these relationships can be leveraged for protection against plant pests. 

Given the fundamental role plants play in providing food, medicine, and habitat, my goal is to identify sustainable ways to manage plant pests using a systems-level approach.

Desu Beriso Dama, Haramaya University

Improving crop resilience and productivity remains a major challenge for global agriculture. Dr. Desu Beriso Dama’s research investigates how genetic diversity in groundnut varieties could help support food security and sustainable cultivation.

Why did you choose to study groundnuts?

Our study “Multivariate analysis for agro-morphological and quality traits in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes in Eastern Ethiopia” focused on evaluating agro-morphological and quality traits among different groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes in Eastern Ethiopia using a multivariate analysis. The motivation behind this research was to identify high-performing and adaptable genotypes that can contribute to improved productivity and quality in groundnut production.

The key findings revealed significant variability among the genotypes, allowing us to identify promising lines for breeding and cultivation in similar agro-ecological conditions

What fascinates you about plants?

I am fascinated by the remarkable diversity and adaptability of plants, especially their ability to thrive under varying environmental conditions. In particular, studying crop plants like groundnut highlights how plant science can directly contribute to food security, livelihoods, and sustainable agriculture.

Kim Lühmann, University of Hamburg 

(current address Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

Plant communication emerged as another recurring theme in our conversations, particularly the hidden molecular networks that allow plants to coordinate responses across tissues. Dr. Kim Lühmann’s research investigates circular RNAs and their potential role in long-distance signalling within plants.

Please tell us more about your work on circular RNAs in plants.

When I first found out that circular RNAs exist, I was very intrigued, especially as a recent publication connected them to the protein I was working on at the time, an abundant phloem RNA-binding protein. As I explored the topic further, I realized that circRNAs could be ideal long-distance signalling molecules in plants due to their stability and the fact that viroids, which are also circular RNAs, can move through the phloem.

Based on this, we investigated the circular RNA content of the phloem sap of Brassica napus (rapeseed) to gain a first comprehensive overview of their presence in phloem sap. We identified thousands of circRNAs and experimentally validated a subset of them, demonstrating that circRNAs are abundant in phloem sap.

In addition, we found binding sites for known phloem-mobile miRNAs on some circRNAs and showed that the RNA-binding protein GRP7 can interact with at least one of them. These findings raise new questions about the extent to which circRNAs play a role in long-distance signalling and how and why they might interact with miRNAs and RNA-binding proteins in the phloem. Read our paper: Characterizing the circular RNA landscape in phloem sap of Brassica napus.

What fascinates you about plants?

What fascinates me most is that plants do not appear to be complex living beings at first glance. However, when you look more closely, their biology reveals itself to be incredibly elaborate and finely tuned, allowing them to cope with a wide range of challenging conditions despite being unable to run away from them.

In my own plant research, I am particularly fascinated by circular RNAs, a class of molecules that has only gained attention in the past decade. There are still many open questions about why they exist and what their functions are, which once again highlights how complex and multi-layered plant biology truly is.

Brian Behnken, University of Washington

Other researchers are exploring how plants balance growth against the need to defend against insects and other threats. Brian Behnken’s work examines why some bean varieties appear to maintain protection against caterpillars despite having reduced defence signalling.

What led you to explore plant defence against caterpillars?

Plants rely on defense programs to antagonize caterpillars or recruit predators to remove them, but these programs often come at the expense of growth. We discovered varieties of beans in Jujuy, Argentina with a low expression of INR (inceptin receptor), a key activator for caterpillar defense responses. 

INR senses a self-peptide that is produced in the foregut of all caterpillars and is presented to the plant in their oral secretions during feeding. We wondered why 8 out of 21 lines in that region were able to proliferate with what we perceived to be a significant gap in their defense. 

We identified promoter variation as the underlying factor for differences in expression, marker gene, and ethylene biosynthesis, a proxy for ascertaining INR activity. We further confirmed a significant correlation between the natural variation in four promoter haplotypes and INR expression in a heterologous wild tobacco (N. benthamiana) system. 

Finally, we tested the effect of low expression on caterpillar herbivory by generating near-isogenic lines where the homozygous low-expression alleles were tested against a homozygous wild type. The results were surprising: the low-expression lines had similar defense despite their reduced INR responsiveness. 

We observed that even though this subset of the Jujuy population had low expression in a key defense protein, they were still protected against caterpillars, which naturally leads to interesting questions about why higher-expression alleles are predominant in nature and not the other way around.You can read the paper Natural variation in expression of a plant immune receptor mediates elicitor sensitivity to find out more.

What fascinates you about plants?

Plants are fascinating because, for all the differences between them and mobile organisms like animals, their genetics demonstrate robust logical schemas based on their ability to distinguish self from non-self and allocate appropriate resources in response. This is evident in the research where overexpressing certain defense proteins leads to growth deficiencies or autoimmunity, hinting at the complex regulation required to keep growth and defense in check. I’m also fascinated by their ecological role in recruiting predators to eliminate threats to their communities. 

They are remarkable organisms whose outer beauty reflects an equally beautiful dynamic of balance and persistence.

Across these PLOS One studies, a common theme emerges: plants are far more dynamic and adaptable than they first appear. Whether through microbial partnerships, molecular signalling, or finely tuned defence systems, researchers continue to uncover the remarkable strategies plants use to survive, and the many fascinating things still left to learn.

References

Kropf AL, Gassmann AJ (2026) Assessment of Beauveria bassiana as an endophyte of maize and its effects on plant growth. PLOS ONE 21(2): e0342175. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342175 

Dama DB, Tesfamariam SA, Hassen AM (2026) Multivariate analysis for agro-morphological and quality traits in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes in Eastern Ethiopia. PLOS ONE 21(4): e0347850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347850 

Lühmann KL, Fekete Z, Fernandes R, Kehr J (2026) Characterizing the circular RNA landscape in phloem sap of Brassica napus. PLOS ONE 21(4): e0347473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347473 

Behnken B, George W, Chaparro AF, Kloss-Schmidt A, Steinbrenner AD (2026) Natural variation in expression of a plant immune receptor mediates elicitor sensitivity. PLOS ONE 21(4): e0343332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343332

The post Behind the Papers: Fascination of Plants Day Research Highlights appeared first on EveryONE.

Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga is a professor at the University of Eastern Finland. He was awarded his Ph.D. in Demography by the National University of Córdoba, Argentina and prior to working in Finland, Ariel had academic stays at the Salvador Allende School of Public Health of the University of Chile, and the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. His main research interests are public health and environment; disasters, mental health and vulnerable populations; and public health in disaster situations. In addition to his academic responsibilities at the University of Eastern Finland, he has been a consultant for the United Nations Development Program, UN International Organization of Migrations, and The World Bank. Alongside mentoring postgraduate students for Masters and PhD awards, Ariel is well published with over 100 research papers published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Scopus. University profile page: https://uefconnect.uef.fi/ariel.abeldano-zuniga/

What excites you most about your field of study?

What excites me most is being able to connect large volumes of demographic and health data with the real lives of the most vulnerable populations. I’ve worked on household air pollution, internal displacement due to climate disasters, and post-traumatic stress following earthquakes in Mexico, and this has shown me that research can be directly translated into public policy. I’m particularly passionate about the intersection of global health, environmental sustainability, and social justice, because that’s where the most urgent problems lie and where well-conducted evidence can truly make a difference.

I know that you are interested in Research Ethics as a whole, what are, in your opinion, some of the challenges faced by the research community in regards to Ethics?

From my experience working in Argentina, Mexico, and Finland, I see some major ethical challenges. The first concerns how research is conducted in vulnerable communities. Often, researchers from high-income institutions collect data in vulnerable communities without any real compensation or follow-up. We need to move from extractive research to long-term collaborations based on mutual respect.

The second challenge concerns how data is currently used. In disaster and displacement research, sensitive data (mental health, immigration status, household vulnerabilities) can be used to harm rather than help. Ethical oversight should not be limited to approval by an ethics committee, but should include data governance plans, anonymization, and controlled access.

The third point concerns power asymmetries in authorship and funding. As a researcher who has been a principal investigator and also a collaborator in global consortia, I have seen how senior researchers from wealthy institutions sometimes monopolize the credit. Ethical research requires transparent authorship policies, fair task distribution, and genuine recognition for local researchers.

Why would you advise authors to publish in PLOS One?

I would recommend publishing in PLOS One for several reasons, based on my experience as an Academic Editor and as a frequent reviewer.

PLOS One evaluates methodological rigor and ethical standards, not perceived “impact” or novelty. This is key for replication studies, negative results, and incremental advances that are essential to science but are often rejected by other journals. In my field (social determinants of health, climate displacement, mental health in low-resource settings), many important findings are not “flashy” but are methodologically sound and relevant to policy. The policies on data, code, and materials align with my own practice of transparency in data use. Open science allows others to verify, reuse, and build upon your work, especially researchers in resource-limited institutions. PLOS reaches not only academics but also practitioners, policymakers, and community organizations, which is the audience that needs public health evidence.

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

The post Editorial Spotlight: Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga appeared first on EveryONE.

Professor Mahmoud Yaish earned his Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from the University of León, Spain, where his research focused on mapping disease-resistance genes in legumes. He subsequently undertook postdoctoral research and lectured at the University of Waterloo, Canada, and then pursued further postdoctoral studies at the University of Guelph. He later joined Sultan Qaboos University, Oman, where he established a distinguished research program in plant stress biology. His work centers on elucidating plant responses to abiotic stress using integrative omics, reverse genetics, and epigenetics approaches, alongside advancing research on plant microbiota and biofertilizers for sustainable agriculture. In 2025, Professor Yaish is recognized among the top 2% most-cited scientists worldwide (Stanford University ranking, USA), ranked second globally in Date Palm research, and placed within the top 0.05% of scientists overall according to ScholarGPS (Meta Analytics LLC, Los Angeles, CA, USA).

What constitutes a fair and thorough peer review process? What is your approach to achieving one?

The process begins with an initial editorial evaluation of the manuscript to assess its relevance, contribution, and analytical soundness, followed by the selection of reviewers whose expertise aligns closely with the study’s subject matter and methodological framework. A fair and thorough peer review process, in my opinion, involves a neutral, expertise-based evaluation that prioritizes scientific rigor, transparency, and constructive assessment. It requires examination of study design, statistical methodology, data quality, and the validity of conclusions, including assessment of model assumptions, power, effect size interpretation, and reproducibility. My approach is to evaluate whether the analytical framework is appropriate to the research question, identify potential sources of bias or misspecification, and provide precise, evidence-based recommendations that distinguish major methodological issues from minor ones, thereby strengthening both the credibility and clarity of the work.

Your research explores plant stress responses and growth promotion. How did you become interested in this field, and what excites you about it?

My interest in plant stress physiology developed through direct exposure to extreme environments at different stages of my career. Early work on greenhouse vegetable production near the Dead Sea in the Jordan Valley showed that high-quality crop production could be achieved under severe soil salinity, prompting fundamental questions about plant tolerance mechanisms. Later experiences in Canada, where microbial growth, including fungi, was observed under subzero conditions, led me to investigate cold-active hydrolytic enzymes in plant–microbe systems, which I subsequently demonstrated experimentally. More recently, work in Oman has highlighted the remarkable resilience of plants such as the date palm tree under combined heat, drought, and salinity stress, and the potential role of plant growth–promoting microbes in enhancing this tolerance. These cumulative experiences continue to motivate my research on the mechanisms underlying plant adaptation to extreme conditions and on translating such traits to improve the resilience of less tolerant crop species.

How has Open Science influenced your field of research?

Open Science has had a meaningful impact on plant stress physiology and plant–microbe research by improving transparency, reproducibility, and the pace of discovery. The growing availability of shared datasets, genomic resources, and analytical pipelines has enabled more robust comparative studies across environments and species. At the same time, preprints and open-access publishing have accelerated the dissemination of findings relevant to climate resilience and sustainable agriculture. In my field, open data and methodological transparency are particularly valuable for validating stress-response mechanisms and statistical inferences across diverse agroecological contexts. At the same time, Open Science has encouraged more collaborative, interdisciplinary approaches, allowing researchers to integrate physiological, molecular, and ecological perspectives to address complex challenges in crop adaptation.

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

The post Editorial Spotlight: Mahmoud Yaish appeared first on EveryONE.

Bridging technology and sustainability across the EU, ASEAN, and Japan, Dr. Manuel Herrador Muñoz is a leading expert in AI, the Circular Economy, and Smart Cities. As a Senior Consultant, his work has secured over €200M in international funding programmes (e.g., Horizon Europe, CEF, EIC) for cutting-edge projects focusing on integrating digital transformation, AI and ESG principles. Alongside holding two patents and contributing 130 peer reviews (see ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3964-2513), his multidisciplinary research is widely published in top-tier journals, including “Future Generation Computer Systems” and “Resources, Conservation and Recycling”.

What leads you to the current research field, and what’s the most exciting area right now?

My journey into this multidisciplinary field began with a foundation in Computer Science Engineering, an EMBA and a PhD in ICT. Over the years, I transitioned from Smart City projects across Spain, Argentina, and the Netherlands into international post-doctoral field research, extensively studying the Circular Economy across South Korea, Vietnam, and Japan. Right now, the most exciting area is the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and sustainable urban development across the ASEAN region and Japan. This includes developing a universal Circular Cities Declaration based on the EU model and studying circularity in Japan e.g., in vacant houses (Akiyas) and across the textiles sector. Parallel to this, I investigate AI safety and AI cybersecurity, specifically uncovering novel attack vectors through persistent memory in LLMs, and introducing the ‘PacifAIst Benchmark’ to evaluate whether AI systems prioritize human survival over their own objectives.

As an Academic Editor for PLOS One, could you describe your experiences when handling manuscripts? What is your approach for evaluating reviewer comments and providing feedback to authors, especially when there are split reviews?

Serving on the Editorial Board of PLOS One since 2024 has been incredibly rewarding. Given my broad expertise across AI, Circular Economy, and Green Tech, I handle highly interdisciplinary manuscripts. When facing split reviews, my approach is to objectively evaluate the methodological rigor. I focus on providing constructive feedback, ensuring that authors receive a clear synthesis of the critical points to elevate their research.

Notably, I am currently facing a surge in the unethical use of AI to generate derivative works or marginally alter previously published research. To maintain the integrity of PLOS One, a crucial part of my initial evaluation involves rigorously screening for plagiarism and ‘salami-slicing’ publication strategies, which typically result in a desk rejection.

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

In the realms of AI and sustainability, transparency and reproducibility are paramount. The most important aspect of Open Science right now is the accessible sharing of code, data, and models. For instance, in my recent research introducing the “PacifAIst Benchmark” for AI safety, I ensured the work was linked to a public GitHub repository. Consequently, imposing unwarranted restrictions on access to underlying code, interview transcripts, or raw datasets inherently contradicts these principles and typically precludes a manuscript from advancing through the review process.

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

The post Editorial Spotlight: Manuel Herrador-Muñoz appeared first on EveryONE.

Since its inception in 2008, Rare Disease Day is observed annually with the objective to build community, drive advocacy efforts, and raise awareness of the challenges that people with rare diseases face. By bringing together the stories of people living with rare diseases, their families and carers, and the international community of researchers and healthcare professionals, Rare Disease Day has been central to highlighting barriers to equity and access for this vulnerable population.

It is estimated that more than 300 million people worldwide are living with a rare disease. This number represents a broad range of conditions, as there are more than 7000 recognised rare diseases in the world: over 75% are genetic conditions, while approximately 20% of cancers are considered rare. Despite the diversity in geography and clinical presentation, people living with rare diseases face universal challenges. On average, patients wait 5 years or more to receive a diagnosis, while facing much higher medical costs than people with non-rare conditions. Even when a diagnosis is finally obtained, treatment options are scarce: for instance, fewer than 5% of rare disorders have an FDA-approved treatment in the United States.

The latter point also underscores how difficult it is to develop new drugs and treatment options for disorders that affect comparatively few people worldwide. Creating meaningful change in this area will require technological advances and innovations in the scientific process, but also cooperation among scientists, healthcare providers and scientific publishers. Ensuring equitable access to scientific knowledge, education on and awareness of rare diseases is key to advancing the availability of healthcare, timely diagnosis and treatment or management of rare diseases.

To explore these themes further we interviewed a pool of PLOS One Academic Editors: Dr Miriam Hickey (Associate Professor at the Institute of Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, University of Tartu), whose work focuses on translational neuroscience and genetic disorders such as Wolfram Syndrome; Dr Fátima Macedo (Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at University of Algarve) with expertise in rare disorders such as Gaucher disease and Williams syndrome; Dr Claudia Brogna (Medical Doctor at the Policlinico Universitario Gemelli) whose work focuses on rare neuromuscular disorders such as spinal muscular dystrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy; and Dr Kenji Fujiwara (gastrointestinal surgeon at Kimura Hospital) with expertise in rare cancers such as pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Their responses demonstrate a shared awareness of the difficulty in obtaining diagnoses for rare disorders, and the significant hurdle this poses to both clinical care and the advancement of our scientific understanding of rare disorders. Agreement emerged on the need for improved modeling of disorders, as well as the need for increased education of primary healthcare providers. 

One of the goals of Rare Disease Day is to advocate for equity in terms of access to resources, healthcare and diagnosis for people living with a rare disease. What are your thoughts on the obstacles that people living with rare diseases face in terms of obtaining an accurate diagnosis? How does this impact the research undertaken by yourself and your colleagues?

Miriam Hickey: One issue with rare diseases is that it typically takes much longer for patients to obtain a diagnosis, or they may remain undiagnosed. This can be due to a number of reasons but can sometimes be caused by a lack of awareness or the need for many specialists to reach a diagnosis. This places a burden on patients, their families and their communities, and delays accurate treatment. We work with accurate models of rare disease to improve understanding of symptoms and pathology, as well as the underlying pathophysiology. By increasing knowledge of symptoms, pathology and their progression, we hope to support earlier recognition and diagnosis of the disease.

Fátima Macedo: There are several obstacles that people living with rare diseases face to obtain an accurate and timely diagnosis. The principal obstacle is the lack of education of general doctors on rare diseases. A rare disease is rare, so that is not the first thing the doctor thinks when facing the patient. This has a profound impact on patients’ life but also on rare disease research. One of the consequences of delays in diagnoses is the low representation in clinical cohorts of patients at the early stage of disease and lack of information on the natural history of the disease. The consequence is that the identification of disease biomarkers, one of the research aims of my research lab, becomes more difficult.

Claudia Brogna: People with rare diseases most often suffer from delays in obtaining diagnoses as they present with non-specific symptoms, making early identification difficult. The rarity of the disease often results in limited knowledge among general practitioners or pediatricians, who don’t always recognize the initial symptoms. In addition there are regional disparities in access to testing: limited accessibility to genetic testing, combined with regional differences in the quality of care networks, creates significant inequities. These issues can also have an impact on research as they make it difficult to achieve timely recruitment of participants for clinical trials.

Kenji Fujiwara: I am a general surgeon, so rare diseases are relatively familiar to me. Many surgeons share this experience. Patients who have not yet been diagnosed but present with severe symptoms come to any available hospital. They often do not have time to wait for a definitive diagnosis, so surgeons sometimes need to begin an operation without a confirmed diagnosis. I experienced this in Japan, a high-income country where most hospitals—and even many clinics—have access to CT scans. I imagine that in many middle- and low-income countries, even more surgeries are performed without a clear diagnosis due to limited diagnostic resources.

Translating research findings into effective clinical care is challenging in any discipline, but perhaps especially so in the field of rare diseases. What do you see as the key challenges in this? How do you think these could be overcome?

Miriam Hickey:  Unfortunately, this is a problem with many different diseases, and particularly so in rare diseases because of the smaller population. This smaller population requires innovative clinical trial design — but these designs are being developed, and PLOS One plays an important role in disseminating that work.
There are many excellent organisations that work with and provide funding to study rare diseases. Increased understanding of commonalities and key differences between conditions is critical, and accurate modeling is vital. Importantly, these rare diseases can provide insights that extend to more common disorders, so supporting research for rare diseases has broad scientific value. 

Fátima Macedo: A key challenge is the geographic dispersion of patients, who are followed at different hospitals by different physicians. Therefore in order to effectively translate research findings, it is essential to create and maintain collaborative clinical networks between different hospitals and research institutes.

Claudia Brogna: Limited numbers and geographic dispersion of patients, who are often spread across the world, is a key challenge, as the low prevalence makes it difficult to recruit a sufficient number of participants for statistically robust clinical studies. In addition there is also a lack of biomarkers and “natural history”: many rare diseases are poorly understood from this point of view. This absence of longitudinal data and validated biomarkers makes it difficult to measure the effectiveness of new drugs. Lastly, there is clinical and genetic heterogeneity: even within the same disease, patients can present with very different symptoms, complicating the identification of uniform clinical endpoints.

Kenji Fujiwara: After surgery, intraoperative findings or pathological results may reveal that the condition was a rare disease or a complication of one. Rare diseases are extremely difficult to study through large-scale trials because of the limited number of patients. Therefore, even a single well-documented case report can have a meaningful impact. Systematically summarizing case reports can also generate valuable evidence in fields where randomized trials are not feasible.

What innovations in technology or the scientific process do you think have the potential to impact clinical care for people living with rare diseases?

Miriam Hickey: From the point of view of technological advances, AI could provide great benefit by recognising symptom patterns or patterns in pathology. However, this relies on high-quality real-world data, including data from accurate models and clinical data.

Claudia Brogna: Key elements that have high potential for impact are innovation and translational research, early diagnosis and holistic management of disease, including rehabilitation programs, technological aids, and psychosocial support.  

Raising awareness of rare diseases and the challenges faced by this particular and diverse patient population is one of the key goals of Rare Disease Day 2026. What do you see as the role of research scientists and healthcare providers in this? And what might the role of publishers be?

Miriam Hickey: Public understanding and awareness are very important and scientists play an important role in that. We hold regular public education events where we discuss our recent results with the public, including our work on rare diseases. We get the most wonderful questions from our audiences and great feedback. This shows their curiosity, strong ability to understand our work, and a deep appreciation of its importance. 

Publishers also help by increasing awareness among peers — highlighting areas for further research and encouraging entry of new researchers to the field.

Claudia Brogna: Researchers and healthcare professionals should actively participate in training events, both for the public and other colleagues, to spread awareness of the diseases and the latest treatment options. The clinician’s role is crucial in “listening and acting together” with patients, sharing their stories to guide research and improve quality of life.  Researchers and clinicians must use disease registries and real-world evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments and support reimbursement requests for innovative drugs. 

The role of publishers is to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness of the challenges inherent to rare diseases, in addition to giving visibility to clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and case reports on rare diseases, and encouraging knowledge sharing among international researchers. Finally, promoting open access to scientific articles on rare diseases, so that researchers around the world can access them without barriers, thereby accelerating the pace of research.

Kenji Fujiwara: Open access journals, in particular, support surgeons who may not have institutional access to subscription-based journals. In the middle of the night at a hospital, when facing a rare condition, access to open literature can directly influence patient care.

What elements of equity and access do you consider when evaluating rare diseases research in your role as Academic Editor for PLOS One?

Miriam Hickey: For all of the articles that I edit, I pay particular attention to methodology — for example, transparency, and the use of reproducible methods — and also to whether the work contributes new, robust knowledge. Nowadays, there are many calls upon scientists’ time, and I am very grateful for my reviewers and the essential role that they play in ensuring high-quality publications. Their role is often under-appreciated!

One way to increase equity for rare diseases is to ensure that high-quality articles on rare diseases are published in open-access platforms such as PLOS. This is vital to increase visibility to both the scientific community and to patients, their families, patient groups, and funding bodies.

Recent publications in PLOS investigating related topics, including the diagnostic journey for women living with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, innovations in clinical trial design for Wolfram syndrome, novel animal model development for the rare disorder Factor V deficiency, identification of neurological pathophysiology unique to Fabry disease, development of novel AI-based diagnostic tools for rare diseases, and investigation of the barriers to translating basic research into clinical care. See also our rare cancers collection.

References and resources

Rare Genomics Institute (https://www.raregenomics.org/) 

National Organization for Rare Disorders (https://rarediseases.org/)

Global Genes – Allies in Rare Disease (https://globalgenes.org/) 

The post Rare Disease Day 2026: Diverse community, common challenges appeared first on EveryONE.

Doris Veronica Ortega-Altamirano is a Doctor Educationalist by the Autonomous University of the State of Morelos, Master’s in health sciences specially on Reproductive Health, by the National Institute of Public Health, Specialist in Women’s Studies by the Metropolitan Autonomous University and, Pedagogue from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Since 1996, she has been a researcher at the Health Systems Research Center of the National Institute of Public Health in Mexico. She has publications related to research in sexual and reproductive health, quality of maternal and child health care, and global burden diseases.

Dr Ortega-Altamirano obtained scholarships as a student, teacher mobility grants and funding for her research projects from the Japan International Cooperation Agency, World Health Organization and the CONACyT/Secihti (National Council for Science and Technology of Mexico), VII Erasmus Mundus Europe Union programme; academic exchanges at Washington University in Seattle, Leiden State University, Netherlands, and the School of Nutrition at Harvard University.

In your career, you have contributed to the delivery of a range of training and development programs in Public Health. What motivates you in this area of research?

I started my professional pedagogy practice in the field of health education in a mining community on the outskirts of Mexico City; I was fascinated to learn that the health of miners and their families was interconnected with their eating habits, their lifestyle, culture and resources such as housing and working conditions.

Soon I was curious to understand the causes and magnitude of their diseases. My need to explain these phenomena led me to discover the community as a patient, and to find epidemiology and statistical tools to satisfy this need.

Continuing health care and the involvement of different actors – from women empowered to take care of the health of rural communities in Mexico to graduate professionals in public health, has been one of the paths through which I have experienced the fertile field of public health. Another aspect has been the production of educational materials, assessment and monitoring instruments, and training to enable human resources in health services to provide care for the health of populations. Some examples of these are: family planning and maternal and child health; breast cancer early detection actions, prevention of childhood obesity; Detection of violence against older adults and improvement of the quality of care for people living with Diabetes Mellitus. 

What do you see as the biggest barrier to publication of good quality Public Health research?

One significant barrier to producing high-quality publications in public health is the inconsistency in the quality of research reports and the scientific rigour of the studies from which these reports come. This variability is often linked to the diverse origins of the studies themselves, which can influence the rigor and reliability of the findings presented. Differences in methodological approaches, data collection standards, and reporting practices across various studies contribute to challenges in maintaining consistent publication quality within the field. There are topics that are relevant to researchers in one geographic area but may not be of interest to researchers and decision makers elsewhere.

How does your role as Academic Editor at PLOS One allow you to contribute to maintaining scientific integrity in your field of expertise?

As an academic editor, I have access to information and tools that allow me to verify that the manuscript I am handling is not a previously published manuscript; I can also verify the identity of authors and suspect fictitious authors; I can verify that the manuscripts comply with the international norms of ethics of scientific research (of which the authors provide evidence).

Understanding the limits of the use of tools such as artificial intelligence in the preparation of research reports supports scientific integrity in the dissemination of public health research results. That is the divide between the present and future of knowledge in this field, and it depends on our ability as editors to detect the authenticity of manuscripts. Each technological advance brings a challenge to the scientific community.

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

The post Editorial Spotlight: Doris Veronica Ortega-Altamirano appeared first on EveryONE.

Last year, our blog celebrated the 10th anniversary of International Women and Girls in Science Day. We took time to reflect on why it is necessary to champion the role of women and girls in science, as well as some of the progress that is being made. This year, we have come a little closer to home, exploring the experiences of some of our Section Editors and their ideas for moving forward. We also spoke in depth to Professor Claire Brockett, Professor of Biomechanics at the University of Sheffield, UK on why inclusion matters to her and her research. 

Women in Science: Perspectives from our Section Editors

 A number of our Section Editors contributed their experiences and insights through a short online survey, exploring the barriers they had faced and how we might move forward to improve equity in science over the coming years. 

The scientific fields of our respondents included biology, psychology, epidemiology and health, as well as statistical methodology. Our first question, to understand whether these scientists had considered this career from a young age. Their answers suggest that science wasn’t always the obvious choice for those working in academia.

Next came the questions related to our theme, the first of which asked whether our editors felt they had met any barriers due to being a woman in science. A high proportion of them responded ‘yes’, highlighting the struggles many of these women will have faced on their journey to become experts in their field.

Exploring these barriers in more detail, there are unfortunately a number of common themes; maternity leave, pay inequity, experiencing discriminatory attitudes, and work-life balance issues will be familiar to many of us. Not being listened to was also cited. 

Perhaps more concerning was the reliance on personal resilience to overcome these challenges, rather than changes in workplace attitudes or policies. Time, experience and even emigration were listed as things that helped these women overcome the barriers they faced. While some did refer to supportive colleagues or family, and the presence of role models as being helpful, there was no mention of institutional policies or assistance programmes. Last year, we discussed some of the ways in which academic institutions are seeking to improve the retention of women in science, but it will be some time before these are able to demonstrate real impact. 

The women who contributed to this blog have made their way to successful positions in their respective fields. The final elements of our questionnaire aimed to be more positive, seeking their thoughts on how we can continue to make progress towards equity in science. We asked who inspired them as children and what they would say to a girl told science isn’t for them. Promoting equity in science is key, and we also sought their thoughts on encouraging men and boys to help, as well as how their role as Section Editors may be important.  

Role models and inspiring figures make a difference to so many of us, and responses included Jane Goodall, Konrad Lorenz, PhD supervisors, friends and family. The answer that stood out for me was from someone who did not have these role models. 

“Science is for everyone”, “follow your heart”; two simple but effective responses to any girl told science isn’t for them. One of our respondents highlighted the recent  Nobel Prize Winner in Physiology/Medicine, Dr. Katalin Karikó, declaring that she “should be a role model to all who are doubting a career in the sciences. She faced enormous barriers, including being evicted from her laboratory. […] I am certain that the next Katalin is out there, and this girl’s interest and passion for science should be cultivated to the fullest extent”. The future potential to change the world is why we need to ensure that science welcomes everyone. One final response spoke to me, encompassing the need for all of us to work with curiosity and integrity:

The discussion of how to encourage men and boys to increase equity in science raised a number of similarly excellent insights, from two simple actions anyone can take immediately (“Share credit and opportunity deliberately” and “Question exclusion when you see it”), to recognising that we might “increase equity in science by treating this objective as a scientific responsibility, not a social favor. Evidence shows that talent is universal, but access to opportunity is not”. A reference was made to a verse from Helen Reddy’s 1972 song “I Am Women”, with the insight that “men and boys need to understand that girls and women can make important contributions to science. We need to keep fighting anti-discrimination policies and fighting for pay equity on the basis that contributions are equally meritorious. We may come upon deaf ears and resistance as an individual but collectively our voices can have an impact and change hearts and minds”. 

Finally, our Section Editors recognised the importance of acting as mentors to support authors, promote inclusive recruitment and reviewing policies. In an ideal world, the promotion of scientific integrity would lead us closer to equity, as in this eloquent statement:

In closing this part of our blog we would like to extend our sincere thanks to our Section Editors for taking part and providing us all with some things to consider over the next 10 years. 

An individual perspective

It was my pleasure to speak to Claire Brockett, Professor of Biomechanics at the University of Sheffield, about her experiences, and how she is working to ensure women and girls see science as something they are a part of. 

Claire joined the Department of Mechanical Engineering as Professor of Biomechanics in 2022. Her first degree was in Medical Engineering, with a PhD in Biotribology from the University of Leeds. Her postdoctoral research covered pre-clinical wear testing of hip and knee replacements, before a  university fellowship enabled her transition to independence. Claire developed a new research area focused on bioengineering of the foot and ankle, supported by new industrial and clinical collaborations. Her work encompasses tribological studies of natural tissue and total ankle replacement, mechanical studies of ligaments and repair materials. Her research also brings in biomechanical studies of patients with ankle replacement and fusion, supported by an EPSRC discipline hopping grant in 2019 which allowed Claire to spend time with clinicians and patients.

Claire is a Chartered Mechanical Engineer, a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and has been involved in public engagement activities throughout her career, also gaining a PGCert in Practical Science Communication.

Why does inclusion of women and girls in science matter to your research?

It matters in a few ways. Firstly, in terms of including people in research as participants, there are lots of examples in medicine and biomechanics where things have been tested on or modelled on men, and scaled or adjusted to suit women. This doesn’t work that well – take a look at crash test dummies, or in sport where shoes have been shrunk to women’s sizes, but haven’t actually been designed for women specifically. Women and girls are not just smaller men, we have different anatomy and physiology and there are so many examples of when this is an issue.

In terms of being IN research, I think a key element of diversity within research is just the perspectives different people bring; that’s beyond just sex or gender. And for me, having a research environment that isn’t at all representative of the general population means that there are voices and ideas missing.

What challenges have you faced, either in your career or as a young person, which you feel were because of your gender?

I think the key one is I never had careers advice to consider engineering as a girl. Some of that isn’t necessarily about my gender – I think engineering is still poorly understood as a discipline – but there were a lot of other professional careers discussed and engineering was not one suggested. Another interesting experience was when I went to a school as Dr Brockett, and the students (aged about 13) had been asked to draw me before I turned up. In a group of 50+ students there were no drawings of women. I think that’s really sad. 

Can you think of a time when someone (or a group of people) really made a difference by recognizing that women and girls face different challenges in science and engineering?

I wasn’t actually a fan of girls only or womens only groups when I was at school and during my degree, it made me feel really aware of being different. But I think it can be really helpful when you can identify with other people like you, or even see role models – I think not being able to see people like you in a particular profession or even a particular role, can dissuade you from getting involved or trying something out. I had a couple of great role models at earlier stages of my career, and just seeing them succeed, whilst being themselves was really important. I’ve been to a few events aimed at women that could be summed up as ‘be more man’ – that’s such a bad approach – we need women succeeding as women to progress!

How has your role as postgraduate tutor allowed you to make a difference? Why is it important to you?

PhDs are difficult – not always technically, but they can take a lot of resilience. There’s no one-size fits all – which means that people progress at different stages and need different support. If you’re the type of person who compares themselves with others (and lots of us are) – this can be really tough. As a postgraduate tutor, I get to talk to students that are finding it hard, and often just provide some support – it’s not always about doing anything practical to help – it is sometimes saying ‘yes, this is rubbish’. I love supporting our PhD students as it took me a long time to realise that there were a multitude of ways, and a whole range of personalities that could succeed. 

You have done a wide range of public engagement, including engaging with schools and schoolchildren. Aside from giving girls a role model for someone in science, are there other ways you think this can influence things.

I think this comes back to the concept of being able to see people like you in roles – this can be achieved in so many ways. But you’re right, school and science fairs can only do so much – the influencers at home – parents, carers and family have so much ability to support girls moving into STEM. We had a stall at the Big Bang Fair once, and there was a parent steering their daughter past our stall essentially saying ‘not for girls’ we stopped them and had a really positive chat. I think there are some fears that as STEM has a male-bias, that means the girls are going to have a hard time and need to be tough – I think inherently there’s some aspects of protecting their daughters from a hard time in there. 

Do you see a role for the publishing industry in making science more equitable?

I do think so… in two ways really. One is looking at the research where studies involve sex/gender – have the authors taken a reasonable approach to representation in their study (recognising this isn’t always appropriate)? The second is thinking about authorship – there’s evidence that sex has an influence on citation count (amongst other things). I can’t begin to suggest how to address that – but it’s certainly an issue.

How do we encourage men and boys to help increase equity in science?

I think one of the aspects is sharing knowledge and experience. When I speak candidly about my own experiences as a girl, student and in my career in academia, male colleagues and friends can be quite surprised about some of the reactions and experiences I’ve had. It is easy to overlook things if you don’t experience them yourself (and I am sure I have done this myself) – so I think we can support men in being our allies by sharing our experiences so that they’re more aware of what happens.

As we close this discussion, I’d like to thank those involved for the insightful and thoughtful comments they have provided in exploring our experiences as women in science. More than that, I would like to thank all those who advocate for equity in science and understand that variety in our researchers makes our research more robust. We still have some way to go, but progress is happening. I’d like to end with one final quote from our survey, to any women and girls struggling to find their place: 

The post Experiences of Women in Science in 2026 appeared first on EveryONE.

As shown in the 2025 World Cancer Day impact report, this theme has already achieved great success in bringing the global cancer community together to raise awareness of the need to create a future in which care and support is personalized, compassionate and accessible to all. Cancer care is too often centred on the disease, the subtype, and the staging, without consideration for the person receiving the diagnosis, and the need for their voice in determining the best treatment decisions. In an emotionally and physically challenging time, people living with cancer do not always feel heard, seen or understood; they can feel helpless navigating healthcare systems with which they are unfamiliar, and alone in the challenges they face. People-centred cancer care encourages everyone in the cancer care community to rethink and refocus how to approach the delivery of healthcare and cancer services, and how best to tailor these to each individual’s needs.

Jenny Tucker, Associate Editor at PLOS One, attended the European Association for Cancer Research (EACR) congress in June 2025, which included sessions related to this World Cancer Day’s theme, such as Eileen White’s keynote lecture on cancer metabolism, which linked into survivorship and quality of life; this session focused on novel findings in cancer cachexia research, where improving patient wellbeing was the focus over cancer-modifying treatments. In November 2025, Alex Tosun, Senior Editor at PLOS Medicine, attended the 8th ABC Consensus Conference (ABC8) in Lisbon. ABC8 has been a strong promoter and supporter of global collaboration and the shared mission to improve the lives of those living with advanced breast cancer. With around 1,500 participants from over 100 countries in attendance, ABC8 fostered meaningful dialogue among patients, advocates, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers. Each group brought unique perspectives to advance consensus on care, quality of life, and equitable access to treatment. Both conferences emphasized that real progress in cancer depends on valuing each individual’s experience, and patients’ wellbeing, as much as scientific innovation, echoing the theme of “United by Unique”.

Building on the wider theme, World Cancer Day 2026 is investigating how personal stories may become advocacy tools, so we took this opportunity to connect with our external editors and understand how they relate to this theme, and how it may be applicable in their research.

Dr Justin C Brown, Director of the Exercise and Cancer Biology research program at Advent Health and a PLOS One Section Editor, and Professor James Brenton, a senior group leader at the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute and a PLOS Medicine Academic Editor, provide their insights around the theme, its application within scientific research, communication of research findings, and how their roles can help ensure greater consideration of the individual in cancer. Strong themes and shared views arose from their responses, with an overall need for increased collaboration between researchers and patients or patient advocates to strengthen research, improve the use of alternative approaches to communicating research findings, and to utilize technologies which allow for personalized cancer care. 

What are your thoughts on the World Cancer Day theme of “United by Unique” which prioritizes people-centred care and the unique needs of each individual? How does this impact the research undertaken by yourself and your colleagues?

Justin Brown: The World Cancer Day theme “United by Unique” resonates strongly with exercise, lifestyle, and survivorship research, where inter-individual variability is not the exception but the rule. Cancer and its treatments affect physical function, fatigue, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life in profoundly different ways, shaped by age, comorbidities, treatment exposure, baseline fitness, and social context. A people-centered approach, therefore, requires us to design and evaluate interventions, such as physical activity, that can be adapted to the needs, preferences, and capacities of each individual rather than applied uniformly. In my own research, this perspective has led to a focus on outcomes that matter to patients across the cancer continuum, including functional capacity, symptom burden, and long-term health beyond disease control alone. Exercise and lifestyle trials increasingly emphasize personalization, feasibility, and real-world implementation, recognizing that survivorship is not a single phase but a dynamic process that evolves over time. This approach aligns closely with the “United by Unique” theme, as it acknowledges that improving cancer outcomes includes supporting how people live during and after treatment, not just how long they live.

James Brenton: Our major challenge is to achieve the promise of truly personalized cancer care by bringing relevant technologies to the clinic and by developing more informative and innovative clinical trial designs. Building on major advances using immunotherapy must be led by science and open approaches to combining medicines for patient benefit.

Cancer research, be it for treatment, diagnoses or basic understanding, requires input from a broad range of expertise, including science, medicine, healthcare, policy and patient advocacy. What do you see as the key challenges in this? What opportunities does it provide?

James Brenton: Co-production with patients is essential to develop better and more effective clinical trials, clinical studies and experimental medicine studies. I also feel that stronger growth and enhanced support for patient advocacy, reflecting its critical inputs, will enable better trials for patients.

Justin Brown: Exercise and survivorship research also highlights the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. Effective studies in this space often require integration across oncology, rehabilitation, behavioral science, physiology, implementation science, and patient advocacy. One of the main challenges is aligning methodological standards and expectations across these disciplines, particularly when traditional clinical trial frameworks are applied to complex, behavior-based interventions. At the same time, this collaboration creates opportunities to generate more holistic and translatable research that can be embedded into routine care and scaled across diverse healthcare settings.

How do you feel about the communication of cancer research to a wide audience? What would you change or recommend to make it more accessible to non-specialists? And what might the role of publishers be?

Justin Brown: Clear communication is especially important for exercise and lifestyle research, where misinterpretation can lead to either unrealistic expectations or undue skepticism. Research findings must be communicated in ways that are precise but accessible, clearly distinguishing between what is known, what is emerging, and what remains uncertain. Plain-language summaries, visual abstracts, and contextual editorials can help non-specialists understand how lifestyle interventions fit alongside standard cancer care. Publishers play a critical role by supporting these formats and encouraging clarity without compromising scientific rigor.

James Brenton: I think a novel approach might be to ask authors to work with patient groups to write (and sign) lay summaries that put the work in context for press releases and use on journal web sites. 

How does or could your role as a PLOS Editor help ensure more research considers the role of the individual in any treatment approach?

James Brenton: Understandably the focus as an academic editor is on scientific quality of manuscripts and ascertaining whether the work has wide benefit to patients. If authors can demonstrate involvement of patient groups (or other diverse research inputs) this can only strengthen submissions.

Justin Brown: As a Section Editor, I see an opportunity to help shape the field by prioritizing research that meaningfully incorporates the individual experience of cancer and survivorship. This includes work that integrates patient-reported outcomes, examines heterogeneity of response, and addresses implementation and equity. By highlighting studies that recognize exercise and lifestyle interventions as core components of people-centred cancer care, editorial leadership can help ensure that survivorship research continues to evolve in ways that reflect both scientific advancement and the lived realities of those affected by cancer.

Recent publications in PLOS investigate related themes, including considering lowered screening cutoffs for anxiety in patients with cancer, inequalities in cancer mortality between people with and without disability, shared decision-making and deprescribing for persons living with cancer in their last phase of life, and cancer survivors’ experiences getting back on track after cancer treatment.

The post World Cancer Day 2026: Continuing the theme of “United by Unique” appeared first on EveryONE.

Issa Atoum is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Information Technology at Philadelphia University (Jordan) and an Academic Editor for PLOS One. He also serves the community through program and technical committee membership for international conferences and as a reviewer for multiple peer-reviewed journals in software engineering and applied computing. His research spans software engineering, machine learning, and natural language processing, with an emphasis on rigorous evaluation, reproducible research artifacts, and practice-aware impact. He also brings industry experience in software development and quality assurance, supported by professional certifications including PMP, ITIL, and Scrum.

In this post, he discusses his thorough assessments of the manuscripts, his insights on AI tools in research and editorial works, and his experience beyond Academia.

I see AI as a tool rather than a target. The goal is not to use AI simply because it is popular, but to use it responsibly to improve methods, strengthen evidence, and help solve problems that are difficult to tackle manually at scale.

As PLOS One Academic Editor, you have provided thorough assessments of both reviewer reports and meticulous analysis of the author’s submissions, including the supplementary information. What is your approach? Do you have any advice for others?

I begin with the parts that often shape the entire assessment. Before looking at anything else, I read the cover letter to understand the authors’ intent and claims, then review any journal checks, as they can highlight issues that require extra care. From there, I assess the manuscript against the PLOS One criteria, with a clear emphasis on research integrity, methodological soundness, and the extent to which the evidence supports the conclusions.

In practical terms, I read the manuscript and supplementary materials together. In many submissions, the key methodological details and datasets sit in the supplementary files, so I treat them as essential. At the initial assessment stage, I set aside dedicated, uninterrupted time to review the entire submission before making any recommendations. I prioritize issues that affect reliability, such as data leakage, missing baselines, unclear evaluation protocols, or inconsistencies between the manuscript and shared artifacts.

As a professor and researcher, I often recognize when shared code appears AI-assisted or is provided as a skeleton rather than a working pipeline. Where artifacts are available, I replicate the workflow on my own machine to confirm that the underlying data support the results. The PLOS Editorial Board Services team recently shared positive feedback from an Associate Editor, noting that my decision letter identified clear errors in the submitted code—errors that suggested the underlying data did not support the reported results. Identifying such issues early helps protect research integrity.

My advice to other editors is to keep decision letters structured and specific. I group feedback into what must change to move forward (validity), what is needed for reproducibility, and what is recommended for clarity. This approach reduces unnecessary back-and-forth and supports a fair process for authors and reviewers.

Artificial intelligence is a major topic of discussion today. How does it relate to your work, and what do you see as its most exciting opportunities, as well as its biggest risks?

AI is closely connected to my research in software engineering and natural language processing, especially in large-scale, evidence-driven analysis. I see AI as a tool rather than a target. The goal is not to use AI simply because it is popular, but to use it responsibly to improve methods, strengthen evidence, and help solve problems that are difficult to tackle manually at scale.

From an editorial perspective, I follow the journal’s approved tools and processes. I do not share manuscript content with external AI tools unless there is explicit permission and an approved workflow, as editors must avoid creating avoidable integrity inquiries regarding confidentiality. I also pay attention to provenance signals in submissions; if images lack clear sources or if AI assistance is used without disclosure, that is a concern.

The most exciting opportunities are practical and research-enabling. AI can help researchers handle complex datasets and improve documentation quality while maintaining rigor. However, the risks are real. Common pitfalls include hidden leakage, unclear preprocessing, unreported prompt sensitivity, and claims that cannot be independently verified. Used responsibly, AI can support stronger science. Used carelessly, it can create uncertainty that harms authors and readers alike.

You have a lot of experience beyond Academia. How does this inform your research, and do you feel it helps with your work as a PLOS One Academic Editor?

My experience beyond academia has shaped how I think about rigor and impact. I have experience in software development and quality assurance, and I also hold formal training in project and service management, with certifications including PMP, ITIL, and Scrum. This background has taught me the value of traceability, precise requirements, and reliable delivery. Those principles translate directly into how I assess research.

In editorial work, this perspective helps me evaluate submissions not only for novelty but also for robustness and reproducibility. I look for methods that are clearly documented, results that are supported by evidence, and artifacts that can be reused and verified. I also understand the challenges of bridging research and practice, so I aim to provide precise, constructive feedback with clear guidance on what is needed to meet the journal’s criteria.

Beyond PLOS One, I contribute through reviewer service for multiple peer-reviewed journals and through program committee roles for international conferences. This broader service reinforces the importance of consistent standards and respectful communication. For me, editorial work is a form of stewardship; it strengthens the scientific record and supports research that is reliable and can be built upon.

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

The post Editorial Spotlight: Issa Ali Atoum appeared first on EveryONE.

After publishing [in PLOS One], becoming a regular reviewer just came naturally, allowing me to engage with new ideas and emerging research directions. Taking on the role of Academic Editor has further extended this engagement and commitment, giving me the opportunity to contribute more directly the scientific community.

Adrián Diaz-Faes

Serving in [the PLOS One Academic Editor] role is an opportunity to contribute as much as I can to uphold quality and objectivity in a world where misinformation disseminates quickly.

Rachid Bouharroud

Being an Academic Editor gives me wider perspective, since manuscripts that are coming are not only from my subdiscipline and so I get an overview of all cancer field.

Benjamin Benzon

Being part of PLOS One means facilitating the dissemination of robust, diverse, and innovative research that might otherwise struggle to find visibility in more selective or niche journals.

Daniel Paiva Silva

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

The post A Year of Editor Spotlight 2025: Editor Board Experience appeared first on EveryONE.

Transparency in methods and data is, for me, non-negotiable. Open materials, reproducible code, and clear reporting standards are vital for cumulative science.

Srebrenka Letina

[Open Science] is important for all scientists, but, in particular, for those working in institutions that cannot afford articles’ costs. Further steps could enhance openness, such as waiving publication fees for researchers in institutions unable to cover these costs.

Luísa Borges

Practice openness. Share your data, your methods, your code. Science only grows faster when it’s shared

Pankaj Bhardwaj

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

The post A Year of Editor Spotlight 2025: Thoughts on Open Science appeared first on EveryONE.

Tips on handling manuscripts

Ensuring objectivity and fairness in peer review, particularly in interdisciplinary fields, is both essential and challenging… I emphasise the importance of methodological soundness, but with high standards for clarity of reasoning, and I value transparency over disciplinary conformity or novelty alone.

Srebrenka Letina

I particularly value including reviewers with diverse backgrounds, as this provides authors with more rounded feedback. Whenever possible, I also try to involve both early-career and retired scientists.

Luísa Borges

I select scholars who have a high degree of expertise that aligns with the topic of the manuscript in need of review… I will then take into account my existing commitments and make a schedule for processing manuscripts.

Taiyi He

My approach to reviewer selection focuses on identifying subject matter experts with strong publication records in reputable scientific journals, particularly those with expertise in both the research topic and methodologies employed.

Claudia Trindade Mattos

Finding reviewers has gotten harder, particularly in certain fields. My go-to approach is to come up with a list of relevant keywords then search for potential reviewers in Google Scholar. I’ve learned over time that postdoctoral scholars tend to be the most willing to review manuscripts.

Janice Bossart

Tips for Early Career Researchers

[My advice for early-career researchers in Botany]: embrace complexity, but don’t lose your footing, be bold about your species, practice openness, and remember the “why.”

Pankaj Bhardwaj

Advice for early-career researchers working in the plant protection and integrated pest management field: credibility supported by robust and rigorous methodology, be patient and don’t fall into the trap of publishing a high number of papers in a short time. Scientific rigor is more valuable than a high number of publications, focus more on applied research based on inter-disciplinary approaches that support farmers more efficiently.

Rachid Bouharroud

My advice, especially for junior researchers, is to actively engage with scholars from neighboring fields by attending conferences or events. This provides an opportunity to explore different approaches and ways of thinking about similar problems.

Adrián Diaz-Faes

Tips for Authors

For me, clear and thoroughly crafted figures summarizing the methods employed by the authors in the research and the results they obtained certainly increase the understanding of reviewers and editors regarding the study, increasing its publishing chances in journals like PLOS One.

Daniel Paiva Silva

From the perspective of an author, always read the manuscript carefully before submitting it to PLOS One. Ensure consistency in spacing between paragraphs, decimal point retention, and reference formatting, and consider the logic of the introduction and abstract.

Taiyi He

My advice for the authors is to produce manuscript that they themselves would enjoy reading in terms of strong theoretical rationale, clear and rigorous methodological procedures and meaningful discussions for research and practice.

Eleni Petkari

I also personally feel that a manuscript should be largely self-contained. By that I mean that readers should not have to consult a bunch of cited references while reading a paper to make general sense of the experimental approach, data collection methods, and data analyses used.

Janice Bossart

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

The post A Year of Editor Spotlight 2025: Tips from Academic Editors appeared first on EveryONE.