PLOS
The Public Library of Science (PLOS) is a nonprofit organization founded in 2000 by Harold Varmus, Patrick Brown, and Michael Eisen to advocate for and implement open-access publishing in scientific research, aiming to make the world's scientific and medical literature freely accessible to all.[1][2] Launched its inaugural journal, PLOS Biology, in 2003, followed by PLOS Medicine and the community-driven PLOS ONE in 2006, which pioneered a multidisciplinary "megajournal" model emphasizing scientific soundness over perceived impact.[2][3] PLOS journals operate under a business model funded primarily by article processing charges (APCs), with content licensed under Creative Commons to enable unrestricted reuse, thereby accelerating scientific progress and public access.[4][5] Among its achievements, PLOS has published hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles across disciplines, influencing the broader shift toward open science by challenging traditional subscription-based models and fostering policy changes for accessibility.[6][7] However, PLOS has encountered controversies, including large-scale retractions—over 100 papers from PLOS ONE in 2022 due to manipulated peer reviews—and ongoing efforts to combat integrity threats like papermill submissions.[8][9][10]History
Founding and Advocacy Origins
The Public Library of Science (PLOS) originated as a nonprofit advocacy organization founded in October 2000 by biomedical scientists Harold E. Varmus, Patrick O. Brown, and Michael B. Eisen, with the aim of promoting unrestricted public access to scientific literature.[11][2] Motivated by the limitations of traditional subscription-based publishing models, which restricted dissemination of taxpayer-funded research, the founders sought to leverage digital technologies for creating a comprehensive online public library of scientific and medical knowledge.[11][12] Their efforts built on prior initiatives like the National Institutes of Health's PubMed Central, an open digital archive launched in 2000, but PLOS emphasized broader systemic change through community pledges and pressure on publishers.[2] Central to PLOS's advocacy origins was an open letter circulated starting in October 2000, which called for the establishment of a free, searchable, and interlinked online public library providing unrestricted access to peer-reviewed literature in medicine and the life sciences.[11][12] The letter argued that scientific publications should be treated as public goods, owned collectively by the research community rather than controlled by commercial interests, and pledged signatories to discontinue support—through submissions, refereeing, or personal subscriptions—for journals that did not deposit their content in PubMed Central or equivalent archives within six months of publication, effective September 2001.[11] This petition garnered over 34,000 signatures from scientists across 180 countries, demonstrating widespread frustration with access barriers amid rising journal prices and the internet's potential for free distribution.[11][13] Initial advocacy efforts focused on pressuring publishers to adopt open-access policies voluntarily, including participation in self-archiving repositories, but met resistance from major commercial entities unwilling to relinquish revenue models dependent on subscriptions.[2][14] By 2001, with limited progress, PLOS shifted toward demonstrating viability through its own publishing initiatives, though its foundational role remained rooted in catalyzing a movement for open science that prioritized empirical accessibility over proprietary control.[2][12]Initial Journal Launches
The Public Library of Science (PLOS) launched its inaugural journal, PLOS Biology, on October 13, 2003, marking the organization's transition from advocacy to direct publishing.[15] This peer-reviewed, open-access journal was designed to encompass all areas of biological research, emphasizing rigorous scientific merit over perceived novelty or impact to broaden accessibility.[16] The first issue featured 22 research articles, including studies on topics such as bacterial chemotaxis and neural development, selected through a process akin to that of established high-impact journals like Nature and Cell.[17] Initial funding came from grants, including support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, enabling free online availability without subscription barriers while covering costs via article processing charges for accepted papers.[18] Following the success of PLOS Biology, which quickly gained traction with submissions from prominent researchers and an initial impact factor competitive with top biology journals, PLOS introduced PLOS Medicine on October 19, 2004.[19] This second journal targeted clinical and health-related research, policy analysis, and perspectives on global medical issues, committing to the same open-access model with immediate free distribution.[20] The launch addressed gaps in medical publishing by prioritizing sound methodology and relevance to human health over hype, while integrating editorials and debates to foster discourse.[20] Like its predecessor, PLOS Medicine relied on peer review emphasizing validity and importance, with early issues covering topics such as infectious diseases and public health interventions, supported by philanthropic and institutional grants to offset operational expenses.[21] These initial launches demonstrated PLOS's commitment to nonprofit, community-driven open access, challenging traditional paywalled models by proving that high-caliber journals could thrive without restricting readership.[18] Both journals adopted Creative Commons licensing for content reuse, promoting wider dissemination and citation, and set precedents for subsequent PLOS publications by integrating public peer review options and transparent editorial processes.[22] By focusing on empirical rigor and accessibility from inception, they attracted submissions from leading institutions, validating the approach amid skepticism from some established publishers regarding sustainability.[17]Expansion and Milestones
Following the launches of PLOS Biology in October 2003 and PLOS Medicine in 2004, PLOS expanded its publishing model with the introduction of PLOS ONE in December 2006, pioneering the mega-journal approach by prioritizing scientific rigor over perceived novelty or impact.[23] This shift enabled broader inclusivity, leading to rapid publication growth; within five years, PLOS ONE became the world's largest scientific journal by article volume.[24] By November 2021, marking its 15-year anniversary, PLOS ONE had published over 250,000 articles, demonstrating the scalability of open-access, multidisciplinary publishing while maintaining commitments to ethical and methodological soundness.[3] This expansion solidified PLOS's role as a major open-access publisher, with its journals collectively advancing accessibility across life sciences, health, and related fields. Subsequent milestones included the launch of additional specialized journals to address emerging needs, such as PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases in 2007, which focused on under-resourced research areas. In June 2023, PLOS announced two new titles—PLOS Mental Health and PLOS Complex Systems—to extend coverage into behavioral sciences and interdisciplinary systems modeling, reflecting ongoing portfolio diversification amid evolving research priorities.[25] These developments underscored PLOS's adaptation to open science demands, though growth has faced challenges like fluctuating submission volumes influenced by funding and competition.[26]Mission and Principles
Open Access Advocacy
The Public Library of Science (PLOS) originated as an advocacy initiative in December 2000, when a group of prominent scientists, including Harold Varmus, Patrick Brown, and Michael Eisen, formed a non-profit organization to challenge the restrictive practices of traditional subscription-based scientific publishing. These practices, dominated by commercial publishers, imposed high costs on libraries and institutions, limiting access to research funded largely by public sources. PLOS argued that such models hindered scientific progress by restricting dissemination and reuse of knowledge, advocating instead for immediate free online availability of peer-reviewed literature to accelerate discovery and collaboration.[11][12] In February 2001, PLOS issued an open letter petitioning major funders, including the U.S. National Institutes of Health, to mandate that all publicly funded research be made freely accessible online within six months of publication. The petition rapidly collected over 34,000 signatures from scientists globally, underscoring widespread dissatisfaction with paywalls that effectively privatized taxpayer-supported work and impeded equitable access, particularly in under-resourced regions. When traditional publishers failed to respond adequately, PLOS shifted strategy by launching its first open access journal, PLOS Biology, in December 2003, demonstrating that high-quality, peer-reviewed publishing could thrive without subscription barriers through alternative funding like article processing charges (APCs). This action-oriented advocacy proved the viability of open access models, influencing subsequent policies such as the NIH Public Access Policy adopted in 2005.[11][12][27] PLOS's advocacy extended beyond petitions to active participation in shaping open access definitions and standards, defining it as immediate, unrestricted online availability for reading, downloading, copying, distributing, printing, searching, or linking, with the sole requirement of proper attribution via Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licenses. The organization has engaged in multi-stakeholder policy dialogues to promote adoption, including support for funder mandates and institutional agreements that cover APCs, thereby reducing financial burdens on authors. By 2013, PLOS's efforts contributed to a surge in global open access momentum, with its journals serving as exemplars that peer-reviewed science could be sustainable and impactful under open models, though critics note that APC reliance can perpetuate inequities if not paired with waivers or subsidies. Ongoing initiatives include capacity-building workshops and policy advocacy for inclusive open science practices, emphasizing reuse and global participation without compromising rigor.[28][12][29]Core Operational Principles
PLOS operates as a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing open science by removing financial and access barriers to scientific literature. Its foundational principle is the provision of immediate open access to all published content under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licenses, enabling unrestricted reading, downloading, and reuse of research outputs to accelerate scientific progress and public benefit.[7][30] This model contrasts with subscription-based publishing by shifting costs primarily to article processing charges (APCs) paid by authors or funders upon acceptance, ensuring sustainability while prioritizing accessibility over profit.[7] PLOS's operations emphasize collaboration with global research communities to influence sharing practices and overcome systemic obstacles in knowledge dissemination.[31] Central to PLOS's publishing workflow is a rigorous peer-review process that assesses the validity, soundness, and ethical compliance of submissions rather than subjective notions of novelty, impact, or perceived importance. For its flagship mega-journal, PLOS ONE, this entails single-blind review by domain experts selected for expertise, with decisions based on technical correctness and methodological rigor.[32] Editorial independence is maintained through policies that insulate decision-making from commercial pressures, supported by a diverse editorial board and transparency in reviewer feedback where applicable.[30] PLOS journals also mandate data availability statements and encourage deposition of supporting materials in public repositories to promote reproducibility and verification.[33] Publication ethics form a cornerstone of operations, with adherence to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and proactive measures against misconduct such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, and manipulation via paper mills.[33] A dedicated ethics team investigates concerns, enforces authorship criteria requiring substantial contributions, and requires disclosure of conflicts of interest and AI tool usage in research or writing.[33] These principles extend to fostering inclusivity, including fee waivers for authors from low-income countries and ongoing exploration of non-APC revenue models to mitigate inequities in participation.[30] In 2023, PLOS introduced policies explicitly addressing unprofessional conduct in peer review and AI applications to uphold accuracy and human oversight in scientific evaluation.[33]Organizational Structure
Leadership and Governance
PLOS operates as a California nonprofit public benefit corporation with no corporate members, governed primarily by its Board of Directors, which holds ultimate responsibility for strategic oversight, policy approval, and ensuring alignment with the organization's open science mission. The board appoints the executive leadership and key committees, such as the Governance and Nominations Committee, to support fiduciary duties and long-term sustainability under California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law.[34] The Board of Directors comprises a diverse group of international experts from academia, publishing, finance, and technology, selected for their expertise in open science and related fields.[35] Chaired by Alastair Adam, Co-CEO of FlatWorld, current members as of the latest available records include:- Amanda Armour, Founder of All Together Everyone;
- Suresh Bhat, CFO and Treasurer of the Hewlett Foundation;
- Israel Borokini, Assistant Professor of Ecology at Montana State University;
- Alison Mudditt, Chief Executive Officer of PLOS (ex officio);
- Emily Sena, Chair in Meta-science and Translational Medicine at the University of Edinburgh;
- Steven Tom, Senior Vice President of Data Science & Insights at Blend360;
- Simine Vazire, Professor at the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne;
- Katherine White, CTO at Spencer Stuart;
- Keith Yamamoto, Vice Chancellor for Science Policy and Strategy at UCSF.[35]
Headquarters and Global Operations
PLOS, a nonprofit organization registered as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation in California, maintains its headquarters in San Francisco at 1875 Mission Street, Suite 103 #188, CA 94103.[38] This location serves as the central hub for executive leadership, editorial oversight, technology infrastructure, and core administrative functions supporting the organization's open-access publishing mission.[39] In addition to its U.S. base, PLOS operates international offices in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Singapore to facilitate global outreach, regional editorial support, and partnerships within the scientific community.[40] The UK office is located at Nine Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1GE, functioning as an establishment for England and Wales operations.[38] In Germany, PLOS GmbH is registered at Edisonstr. 63, Haus A, 1. Etage, 12459 Berlin, aiding European coordination.[41] The Singapore office, under registration number 202304559Z, supports Asia-Pacific activities.[41] These distributed locations enable PLOS to manage a workforce of approximately 180 employees, many of whom work remotely across the U.S., UK, and other regions, while handling submissions, peer review, and dissemination for journals serving an international readership.[42] The structure reflects PLOS's emphasis on equitable access to scientific publishing, with offices positioned to engage diverse global stakeholders without reliance on a single geographic center.[5]Publications
Flagship and Discipline-Specific Journals
The flagship journals of PLOS, PLOS Biology and PLOS Medicine, were established to provide open-access venues for high-impact research in broad life sciences and clinical medicine, respectively. PLOS Biology, launched on December 20, 2003, publishes original research of exceptional significance, originality, and relevance across all areas of biological science, from molecular mechanisms to ecosystems, with a selective acceptance rate emphasizing transformative contributions.[43] [44] PLOS Medicine, launched in December 2004, prioritizes research addressing global health challenges, healthcare delivery, policy implications, and inequities, often featuring studies with direct applicability to clinical practice and public health interventions.[45] [46] Complementing these, PLOS's discipline-specific journals target narrower subfields, offering rigorous, open-access publishing for specialized research while upholding standards of methodological soundness and transparency. Launched in 2005, PLOS Computational Biology focuses on computational modeling, algorithms, and data-driven approaches to biological problems, spanning scales from cellular processes to population dynamics.[47] Similarly initiated in 2005, PLOS Genetics covers inheritance, genomics, and evolutionary biology across organisms, including human disease genetics and microbial evolution.[47] By 2007, PLOS expanded with PLOS Pathogens, which examines host-pathogen interactions, virulence mechanisms, and immunology in infectious diseases, and PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, dedicated to epidemiology, control strategies, and socioeconomic impacts of under-resourced pathogens like helminths and protozoa.[47] These discipline-specific outlets, often termed "community journals," were developed in response to scientist demand for field-tailored open-access options beyond the flagships' selectivity, fostering subdisciplinary communities through themed collections and editorial expertise.[48] Later additions include PLOS Climate (2021), integrating natural and social sciences for climate impacts and adaptation; PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, addressing interdisciplinary sustainability challenges like resource management; and PLOS Global Public Health, emphasizing equity-focused public health research in low-resource settings.[47] All maintain PLOS's commitment to immediate open access, mandatory data availability, and peer review centered on validity rather than perceived novelty.[47]PLOS ONE and the Mega-Journal Approach
PLOS ONE, launched by the Public Library of Science on December 20, 2006, operates as a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed open-access journal accepting submissions across science, engineering, medicine, and beyond.[3] It embodies the mega-journal model by prioritizing high-volume publication of valid research irrespective of disciplinary boundaries or perceived impact, having amassed over 276,000 articles by late 2023.[9] The core of this approach lies in a peer-review process that evaluates manuscripts solely on scientific soundness, including methodological rigor, data support for conclusions, and ethical compliance, rather than novelty, significance, or broad appeal.[49] Reviewers and editors assess whether findings are technically correct and reproducible, accepting studies with negative, null, or incremental results that meet these criteria, which contrasts with conventional journals' emphasis on transformative potential.[50] This "soundness-only" criterion aims to reduce bias against less glamorous but reliable work, fostering a more inclusive record of scientific progress.[51] By forgoing impact-based filtering, PLOS ONE has influenced the proliferation of similar mega-journals, which collectively handle a substantial share of open-access output through article processing charges while challenging traditional gatekeeping in scholarly communication.[52] The model's scalability supports annual influxes of over 20,000 new authors, enabling broad dissemination but raising questions about quality consistency amid volume.[23]Recent Journal Developments
In 2024, PLOS formed a working group to investigate alternatives to article processing charges (APCs), focusing on more equitable and sustainable funding mechanisms for open access publishing. The group developed a framework titled "How equitable is it?" to assess potential models, with completion targeted for October 2024.[53] This initiative addressed longstanding criticisms of APC dependency, which can disadvantage researchers from under-resourced institutions despite PLOS's fee waivers and discounts.[53] To facilitate this shift, PLOS secured a $3.3 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in late 2024, enabling experimentation with non-APC revenue streams while maintaining operational stability during the transition.[54] Complementary funding included three major grants announced in early 2025, supporting price transparency efforts and broader reforms to reduce financial barriers in scholarly communication.[55] These developments aligned with PLOS's stated goal of transformational change in publishing, emphasizing collective funding over per-article fees to enhance accessibility.[13] In journal operations, PLOS ONE encountered scrutiny in August 2025 when it issued expressions of concern for four papers from Japanese researchers, citing overlaps in control data, study designs, and statistical analyses across publications.[56] The notices highlighted procedural similarities but stopped short of retraction pending further investigation, underscoring PLOS's post-publication review processes amid ongoing debates over mega-journal rigor. No retractions followed by October 2025, though the incident prompted discussions on data reuse standards in high-volume outlets.[56] Across its portfolio, PLOS journals emphasized thematic collections and editorials in 2024–2025, such as PLOS Biology's year-end review of climate impacts on life sciences and PLOS ONE's curated highlights of interdisciplinary advances.[57][58] These efforts reflected adaptive content strategies without major structural overhauls beyond the funding model explorations.Financial Model
Article Processing Charges and Revenue Streams
PLOS relies on article processing charges (APCs) as its primary revenue mechanism, a model adopted since its founding to fund open-access publishing by shifting costs from subscriptions to authors or their institutions upon manuscript acceptance.[59] These fees cover peer review, production, hosting, and distribution, with amounts varying by journal scope and article type to reflect editorial and operational demands.[59] For instance, PLOS ONE, its flagship mega-journal, levies $2,382 for most research articles, while more selective outlets like PLOS Biology charge $5,500 for research articles and PLOS Medicine $6,460.[59]| Journal | Article Type | APC (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| PLOS ONE | Standard research articles, study protocols | 2,382 |
| PLOS Biology | Research articles, short reports | 5,500 |
| PLOS Medicine | Research articles | 6,460 |
| PLOS Computational Biology | Research articles | 3,043 |
| PLOS Genetics | Research articles | 3,043 |
| PLOS Pathogens | Research articles/short reports | 3,043 |