George Vousden

"Our editorial policies, designed to safeguard the integrity of the peer review process and ensure the accuracy, reliability, and accountability of published research, remain unchanged"

In 2025, we continue to advocate for policy based on scientific evidence. This 2020 Editorial, “We need leaders that believe in scientific evidence”, resonates today as loudly as ever: plos.io/34lyl59. PLOS Biology also continues to push for DEI and a diverse scientific community:
plos.io/3rzxczU 🧪

PLOS One Associate Editor UK-Remote, US-Remote

@plosone.org is hiring! We're looking for several new associate editors as we continue to grow. Successful candidates can expect:

- A comprehensive onboarding process
- A remote first, supportive organization committed to drive open science forward job-boards.eu.greenhouse.io/plos/jobs/45...

2024 was an EXCELLENT year for @plosglobalpublichealth.org and it's really fun to look at some of our most-viewed articles we published this past year. Check out our top 5 below - and happy new year! 🥳

Editor's picks: Highlights of 2024 - EveryONE As we approach the end of 2024, PLOS One staff editors have reflected on some publications from this past year which really…

Working behind the scenes at @plosone.org is a group talented, knowledgable and dedicated staff editors. Here are their favourite papers from this year. everyone.plos.org/2024/12/20/e...

You can find all of PLOS' journal accounts and editors in this starter pack

go.bsky.app/5nHQzbg

Open Science Indicators: How might we start thinking about the leading adopters of Open Science practices? - The Official PLOS Blog Author: Lauren Cadwallader, Open Research Manager, PLOS The latest version of PLOS’ Open Science Indicators (OSI) dataset has been released, extending to…

Read about recent developments in measuring uptake in open science practices here: theplosblog.plos.org/2024/10/open...

This is a shame, since open science practices can be measured and provide a much better gauge of quality than the impact factor of journals researchers choose to publish in.

Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey There are global movements aiming to promote reform of the traditional research evaluation and reward systems. However, a comprehensive picture of the existing best practices and efforts across variou...

In a survey of 230 researchers from 37 countries, most were involved in open science activities, but these practices were rarely recognised by their organisation.

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

PLOS One is on Bluesky! 👇

Welcome to our Bluesky account where you will find updates on open science publishing, policies and practice. This account will also provide thought leadership posts on scholarly publishing, partnership announcements and updates on PLOS policies and initiatives.

We’re thrilled to announce our latest results from the histological analyses on the first deciduous molars from two Early-Medieval necropolises, now available on PLOS One!
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

Thrilled to share news of a generous $3.3M grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support PLOS's commitment to pioneer a shift away from traditional publishing models and APCs - learn more about our plans below.
theplosblog.plos.org/2024/12/plos...

This is exciting!

I wonder how many journals without dedicated ethics teams reported fraudulent submissions 🤔

Nearly a third of journals reported fraudulent submissions – report - Research Information KGL Consulting study gives insights into editorial compensation, gender representation, and operational structures

"Nearly a third of journals reported instances of fraudulent submissions, with more than half now having staff roles dedicated to safeguarding research ethics."
www.researchinformation.info/news/nearly-...

‘Systematic reviews’ that aim to extract broad conclusions from many studies are in peril Fake papers are “poisoning the well” for these gold-standard syntheses, researchers say

Quality assessment is an essential part of a systematic review or meta analysis, but those tools are not designed to detect fraudulent papers. Developing tools that are able to do so will not be easy, especially as papermills continue to evolve.

www.science.org/content/arti...

Made a starter pack featuring PLOS Climate editors who are here on Bluesky! Give us a follow, and check out the journal 😊

plosclimate.org

Traffic Noise Blocks Out the Benefits of Nature Sounds A study reveals that traffic noise significantly reduces the stress-relieving benefits of natural sounds like birdsong. Participants reported improved mood and lower anxiety when listening to nature, ...

Natural soundscapes improve mood and reduce stress, but this effect is diminished with the addition of traffic noise. Reducing the traffic's speed lowers the detrimental effect.
www.technologynetworks.com/tn/news/traf...
Original study in PLOS ONE: journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

If you saw my thread on public social media, research ethics, and AI earlier today and would like an easier way to read and share it than a very long series of posts, here you are! skywriter.blue/pages/cfiesl...

Testing for reviewer anchoring in peer review: A randomized controlled trial Objective Peer review frequently follows a process where reviewers first provide initial reviews, authors respond to these reviews, then reviewers update their reviews based on the authors’ response. ...

Do reviewers appropriately update their scores based on rebuttals? In this PLOS ONE paper with Ryan Liu, Steven Jecmen, Fei Fang, and Nihar Shah, we present a randomized controlled trial that suggests that, at least under certain conditions, they do.
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

I'm not a lab-based biologist though - I spent my PhD being unable to replicate previous results of psychology experiments in rats. These were technical and conceptual replications (if a technical replication is ever possible). 3/3

If it fails, this could be because A) we have a poor understanding of the mechanism or B) there was a very specific issue with the original experiment. If we only do conceptual replications we won't be able to disentangle A and B. 2/n

Both types of replication are valuable imo. 'Successful' conceptual replication is very powerful and suggests we have a good grasp of the underlying mechanism. 1/n

Hi Bluesky, I'm an editor on PLOS One and I care about:
- Ensuring robust peer review at scale
- Reproducibility and preventing publication bias
- Transparent, ethical research practices
- Reducing inequities in peer review and research participation
- Managing remote teams effectively