Comments for The Official PLOS Blog

Comment on Protocols.io Tools for PLOS Authors: Reproducibility and Recognition by Sheryl P. Denker

Sheryl P. Denker — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:24:35 +0000

The partnership with protocols.io is one way of facilitating the sharing of detailed methodological information — in a way that is open, persistent and practical for authors and readers — but it is by no means an exclusive ‘marriage’. We worked with protocols.io to make sure these criteria of persistence and openness were met, but authors are free to use any other open repositories that meet these criteria, or to supply detailed protocols in supplementary information. Depositing a protocol is optional, and all authors must comply with PLOS’ robust data availability policy. It is the principle of sharing protocols and data that PLOS endorses.

Comment on Protocols.io Tools for PLOS Authors: Reproducibility and Recognition by Lenny Teytelman

Lenny Teytelman — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:37:28 +0000

Dear Dr. Eysenbach,

Our protocols.io is not a journal but a repository. Like Dryad for data or GitHub for code, we are a repository for protocols that accompany published papers. We are also like bioRxiv for protocol preprints.

We do not do peer review and are not a journal. We are not in competition with your JRP, Nature Protocols, Current Protocols, Nature Methods, MethodsX, Bio-protocol, or any of the other method-centered journals.

Kind regards,

Lenny Teytelman
CEO, protocols.io

Comment on Protocols.io Tools for PLOS Authors: Reproducibility and Recognition by alex

alex — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:02:53 +0000

PLOS given its nature should not marry to one single platform. there are other repositories for protocols. the principle is simple, share the data and the protocol used to derive such data. by having this marriage PLOS is just endorsing a bad vertical integration that will prevent others from accessing the market of protocols. at this point PLOS should make it clear that it is not getting married with protocols.io but with the principle that says share data and protocols used to deruve such data. i would really like to see such principle being put forward as opposed to the endorsment that PLOS is doing here.

Comment on PLOS Supports Net Neutrality to Ensure Global Access to the Scientific Literature by Roundup: Statements From Companies/Organizations Participating in Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality | LJ INFOdocket

Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:13:56 +0000

[…] PLOS […]

Comment on Immediate and Lasting Impact: Top Ten New Species of 2017 by susan

susan — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 10:07:05 +0000

nicely and well said but i have objection against the statement, and i quote your statement,”As a scientist and scholar, I like to think that science is a meritocracy of ideas and that their value derives from the quality of the work and its impact rather than the impact factor of the journal overall. Taxonomy is a very special case that is not at all served well by impact factors as they are today calculated”

Comment on Protocols.io Tools for PLOS Authors: Reproducibility and Recognition by Sheryl P. Denker

Sheryl P. Denker — Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:16:50 +0000

0000-0001-7318-5892

Authors are free to cite protocols published elsewhere. PLOS and protocols.io worked together to organize the flow in an author-friendly way and to ensure long-term preservation of the methods and bi-directional links between article and protocol. The partnership is not exclusive and authors can use other platforms that offer similar guarantees of preservation.

Comment on Protocols.io Tools for PLOS Authors: Reproducibility and Recognition by Gunther Eysenbach

Gunther Eysenbach — Thu, 22 Jun 2017 02:58:25 +0000

0000-0001-6479-5330

There are other protocol platforms / journals out there, e.g. JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org). I am not sure why PLOS is supporting only one specific vendor.

Comment on Measuring Up: Impact Factors Do Not Reflect Article Citation Rates by The problem with using cost-per use analysis to justify journal subscriptions | A Way of Happening

Fri, 09 Jun 2017 01:27:02 +0000

[…] would we measure this skew? Journal article-level usage metrics perhaps? Something like a citation frequency plot – which attempts to solve the long tail of the Journal Impact Factor – but shows how […]

Comment on PLOS Publication Costs Update by Are Open Access Journals Immune from Piracy? - The Scholarly Kitchen

Are Open Access Journals Immune from Piracy? - The Scholarly Kitchen — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:32:16 +0000

[…] there are costs to publishing and nothing is free. This all came to a head a few years ago when PLOS ONE increased their APC and the collective world went nuts. Digging out tax documents showed that they pay vendors (just […]

Comment on Author Credit: 2016 Roundup by Sheryl P. Denker

Sheryl P. Denker — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 16:48:42 +0000

0000-0001-7318-5892

Hello Cornelius,

More information on ORCID, including a link to the ORCID registration page where you can get an ORCID iD for yourself, can be found here https://www.plos.org/orcid. The button at the bottom of the page that says “Register for an ORCID iD” goes directly to ORCID.

Thanks for the question.