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.

The ocean is a huge carbon sink, storing 30% of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities. It also helps to regulate our climate through the movement of ocean currents. Our oceans are incredibly biodiverse, despite an estimated 91% of ocean species remaining undiscovered [1]. Given how important the ocean is to our way of life, World Ocean Day was launched in 2002 as an annual collective day of action to promote a healthy ocean and a stable climate. 

On the 8th of June, a network of individuals from over 180 countries are uniting for World Ocean Day 2026 around the theme of “Strong Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for Our Blue Planet”. To mark the occasion, we explore some of the science published at PLOS on Marine Protected Areas, and ask our authors and editors how open science can help with the field of ocean conservation.

What are Marine Protected Areas?

Marine Protected Areas are designated regions of the ocean, established by law, protecting habitats, species, and ecological processes. This year’s World Ocean Day brings together the momentum of recent multi-year action themes, which aim to protect at least 30% of Lands, Waters, and Ocean by 2030 (30×30) through MPAs. World leaders have committed to 30×30 both within national waters and across the High Seas, an area covering two-thirds of the ocean and nearly one-half of Earth’s surface.

What does research tell us about Marine Protected Areas? 

Research has shown that while Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are useful, their effectiveness depends on how they are implemented. We spoke to authors of recently published PLOS research to examine this.

Matt Doherty (University of Plymouth, U.K) remarked that many MPAs are “paper parks,” where damaging activities, such as bottom trawling, are still allowed. Furthermore, Matt’s research [2] in Little Cayman in the Cayman Islands found that even well-enforced no-take areas experienced catastrophic coral loss during a marine heatwave, with more than half of corals dying despite strong local protection. As climate change warms the ocean, these bleaching events are expected to continue. 

The impact of climate change on MPAs is not limited to rising ocean temperatures, but also shifting habitat distribution. Research led by Ryan Gasbarro (University of California, U.S.A) [3] shows how species distributions are already shifting in response to warming oceans, with suitable habitats declining or moving beyond existing MPA boundaries. This prompted calls for adaptive MPAs that can better account for future ecosystem changes. Kaila Frazer (University of New Hampshire, U.S.A) [4] further highlights this, finding the impact of extreme temperature events could also change as the climate warms. Historically, marine cold spells have harmed habitat availability for Blue Whales and Leatherback Turtles; however, future marine cold spells could actually provide refuges for these species and their prey as the ocean is projected to continue to warm as a result of climate change.

Figures from [3] left and [4] right.

The points made by Ryan and Kaila’s research was echoed by one of our PLOS One Academic Editors, John Claydon (FisherFolkFirst, Turks and Caicos Islands/Italy), who remarked: “MPAs cannot reverse the impacts of climate change [and] pollution”. John also commented on the need for equity in ocean protection. Global targets, like the 30×30 initiative, could risk disproportionately affecting small-scale fishers while leaving more industrial fisheries relatively untouched. 

Together, these insights suggest that the next generation of MPAs must not just be larger in area, but better enforced, more flexible in the face of climate change, and more equitable in how their costs and benefits are shared.

How important are open science and open data practices to the field of ocean conservation? What more can publishers do? 

PLOS has been a long-standing advocate of Open Science practices. We require authors to share the data underlying their findings, helping to ensure research is transparent, reproducible, and accessible to a global community. We asked some of our authors and Editors how Open Science practices help the marine science community:

Ryan Gasbarro: “Open science and transparent data practices are important. Not only do they allow for more rigorous review from peers and the public, they are valuable tools to teach the next generation of scientists. I have certainly benefited from accessing other scientist’s data and code, and still find myself learning from these resources!”

John Claydon: “Making data transparent and available to all is very important: it makes science better by allowing results to be independently reviewed and where science was previously restricted to the individual research groups and what data they can afford to collect, the scope of science has broadened exponentially. All publishers should demand that authors must make their data publicly available from which any results presented in a manuscript were generated.”

Matt Doherty: Open science and transparent data practices are extremely important for ocean conservation. There is already a huge amount of marine data out there, but much of it remains fragmented across projects, institutions, regions and repositories. If those data are stored in meaningful, accessible and well-documented ways, they can be used far beyond the original study. That is especially important with regards to climate change, where we are often trying to understand large-scale patterns across systems, countries and time. I think this is particularly important now because we urgently need better links between science and policy. I recently attended a Caribbean policy workshop, and one thing that stood out was that several people from management and policy backgrounds felt there was not enough data to make decisions. From a research perspective, I do not think the problem is a lack of data. In many cases, there is a lot of data, but it is not always easy to access, manage, standardise or synthesise. That creates a gap between the data that exist and the information that reaches decision-makers. Publishers can help by continuing to push for open data policies across journals, but also by encouraging better metadata, clearer data standards and accessible repositories. Making data available is only the first step. Data also need to be understandable and reusable. I think journals could do more to support data papers, synthesis papers and collaborative work that brings existing datasets together in ways that are useful for conservation and policy.Ultimately, we can either advance marine science collaboratively, or we can slow progress by keeping data locked away for individual gain. I have seen both sides of that in the field, and we know which one gives ocean conservation the best chance.

Kaila Frazer: “Reading open science articles has been critical to my development as an early career researcher without consistent access to university journal subscriptions. I believe the next steps for open science publishers include strengthening code, data, and LLM- prompt sharing requirements, as well as waiving submission fees for all early career scientists.”

How did you get involved in ocean conservation?

We also asked for stories on how those we spoke to got into the field of ocean conservation. Ryan’s path shifted dramatically during his PhD, when the COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift to away from lab-based genetics work:

“It wasn’t until the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 forced me to adapt my PhD research plans, changing my focus from genetics and laboratory work to computer modelling that only required a laptop, internet access, and a lot of patience in teaching myself maths and coding skills. This pivot worked for me because I was intensely curious, and it ended up making the lab work that I was able to accomplish much stronger.”

For Matt Doherty, marine science was a long-standing interest stemming from growing up near the coast and eventually diving in the Great Barrier Reef:

“I grew up visiting my Gran on the coast of Sunderland, [United Kingdom,] and that is where I got my love for the ocean from. My first scuba dive was in the Mediterranean when I was seven. It was a bit less regulated back then. There is still a photo of me sat on the back of a boat in full scuba gear, looking terrified, which does the rounds at family parties. When I was 18 and playing rugby in Australia at the University of Queensland, I went diving on the Great Barrier Reef one weekend, and it all snowballed from there really. I came home, went to university in Swansea, and never looked back. I probably owe a lot to one of my former lecturers, Dr Nicole Esteban, who gave me my first real step into the field by helping organise an internship in Sint Eustatius, [Leeward Islands,] after graduation. Since then, I have been lucky enough to work around the world, and I am enjoying an exciting career so far.” 

What advice would you give to Early Career Researchers?

Matt: I would say: be good to work with, be useful, and be someone people trust. Marine science is a small world, and fieldwork especially depends on people who can work hard, get on with others, and deal with things not going to plan. Use your networks, and do not be disheartened when people say no. Everyone gets ignored, rejected or turned down at some point. Try again. I would also recommend building strong writing and quantitative skills. Being reliable both in the field and at the analysis stage makes you much more useful to a team.

Ryan: “My main advice would be to stay curious and adaptable. Very few scientists I know followed linear paths in their careers…Also, don’t be afraid to ask for help. Scientists tend to be passionate about what they do, and this passion often translates into an eagerness to share knowledge and see the next generation of scientists carry their field forward. I have been lucky to have great mentors in my career, and I continue to learn every day from colleagues and collaborators.”

Kaila: “I am currently a PhD student, so I ask this question for myself often! I am grateful to the NOAA Lapenta Internship program which enabled me to do the research I recently published in PLOS Climate, and I encourage undergraduate students to pursue government research internships as I did.”

What advice would you give to the public for protecting the world’s oceans?

In the spirit of World Ocean Day as a collective day of action, we asked what advice researchers had for the public. 

For Ryan, that starts with active participation:

“Get involved! There are so many ways to learn about the ocean, and get involved in citizen science. I think this is super exciting. You can go to your local beach and use the iNaturalist app on your phone to document what you find, and this data may just end up in a scientific study, as researchers are using citizen science data more and more these days. If you don’t have access to the ocean, there are still ways to be involved. For example, you can follow along and even interact with livestreams exploring the frontiers of the deep ocean (e.g. from Schmidt Ocean Institute or the E/V Nautilus).”

Matt commented on the need for collective action:

“Advocate for your local areas. Hold decision-makers to account, and push for climate action at the source. We cannot simply adapt or restore our way out of this. We need to reduce fossil fuel use, challenge weak environmental policy, and stop treating climate change as something that can be solved by individual lifestyle choices alone.”

Kaila said individual and collective action go hand-in-hand:

“I believe that the best way to protect the world’s oceans is to reduce the anthropogenic carbon emissions which are driving global climate change. This mission goes hand and hand with the need to reduce plastic waste in the ocean. Shifting our cultures and policies away from fossil fuel and plastic consumption, therefore, is the highest impact action we can take to protect marine organisms.”

References

1. Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpson AGB, Worm B (2011) How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biol 9(8): e1001127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127 
2. Doherty ML, Johnson JV, Goodbody-Gringley G (2025) Widespread coral bleaching and mass mortality during the 2023–2024 marine heatwave in Little Cayman. PLoS One 20(5): e0322636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322636
3. Gasbarro R, Ainley DG, Andrews KS, Ballance LT, Blondin H, Bograd S, et al. (2025) Projected changes to the extent and seasonality of seabird habitat in the California current and implications for marine spatial planning. PLOS Clim 4(11): e0000687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000687 
4. Frazer KJ, Welch HM, Jacox MG, Lezama-Ochoa N, Abrahms B, Pozo Buil M, et al. (2025) Marine cold-spells in the California Current System: Modeling changes in frequency and impacts on endangered species habitat. PLOS Clim 5(1): e0000563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000563 

The post World Ocean Day 2026 appeared first on EveryONE.

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.