PLOS One (stylized PLOS ONE, and formerly PLoS ONE) is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006. The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. The Public Library of Science began in 2000 with an online petition initiative by Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus, formerly director of the National Institutes of Health and at that time director of Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Patrick O. Brown, a biochemist at Stanford University; and Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. According to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. In January 2010, the journal was included in the Journal Citation Reports and received its first impact factor of 4.411. PLOS One papers are published under Creative Commons licenses.

PLOS ONE logo 2012
Edited byJoerg Heber
Publication details
Publication history
FrequencyUpon acceptance
LicenseCreative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International
Standard abbreviations
PLoS One
OCLC no.228234657



The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded PLOS a $9 million grant in December 2002 and $1 million grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new free-access biomedical journals.[1][2] Later, PLOS One was launched in December 2006 as a beta version named PLOS One. It launched with Commenting and Note making functionality, and added the ability to rate articles in July 2007. In September 2007 the ability to leave "trackbacks" on articles was added.[3] In August 2008 it moved from a weekly publication schedule to a daily one, publishing articles as soon as they became ready.[4] In October 2008 PLOS One came out of "beta". Also in September 2009, as part of its Article-Level Metrics program, PLOS One made the full online usage data—e.g., HTML page views, PDF, XML downloads—for every published article publicly available. In mid-2012, as part of a rebranding of PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name to PLOS One.[5]

Output and turnaround

Year Papers Published
2007 1,200[6]
2008 2,800[6]
2009 4,406[7]
2010 6,749[7]
2011 13,798[8]
2012 23,468[9]
2013 31,500[10]
2014 30,040[11]
2015 28,107[12]
2016 22,054[13]

The number of papers published by PLOS One grew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat. By 2010, it was estimated to have become the largest journal in the world,[7] and in 2011, 1 in 60 articles indexed by PubMed were published by PLOS One.[14] By September 2017, PLOS One confirmed they had published over 200,000 articles.[15] By November 2017, the journal Scientific Reports overtook PLOS One in terms of output.[16][17]

At PLOS One, the median review time has grown from 37 days to 125 days over the first ten years of operation, according to Himmelstein's analysis, done for Nature. The median between acceptance and posting a paper on the site has decreased from 35 to 15 days over the same period. Both numbers for 2016 roughly correspond to the industry-wide averages for biology-related journals.[18][19]


The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge.[20] He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012.[21] Damian Pattinson then held the chief editorial position until December 2015.[22] Joerg Heber was confirmed as editor-in-chief from November 2016.[23]

Publication concept

PLOS One is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead, PLOS One only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment.[24]

Each submission will be assessed by a member of the PLOS ONE Editorial Board before publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees. If published, papers will be made available for community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating.[25]

According to Nature, the journal's aim is to "challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors".[26] Being an online-only publication allows PLOS One to publish more papers than a print journal. In an effort to facilitate publication of research on topics outside, or between, traditional science categories, it does not restrict itself to a specific scientific area.[24]

Papers published in PLOS One can be of any length, contain full color throughout, and contain supplementary materials such as multimedia files. Reuse of articles is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License. In the first four years following launch, it made use of over 40,000 external peer reviewers.[27] The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics handling submissions and publishes approximately 50 % of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2.9 experts.[28] Registered readers can leave comments on articles on the website.[26]

Business model

Welcome, Nature. Seriously (from PLoS) (5405189157)
A welcome message from PLoS to Nature Publishing Group on the launch of Scientific Reports,[29] inspired by a similar message sent in 1981 by Apple to IBM upon the latter's entry into the personal computer market with its IBM Personal Computer.[30]

As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, PLOS One is financed by charging authors a publication fee. The "author-pays" model allows PLOS journals to provide all articles to everybody for free (i.e., open access) immediately after publication. As of October 2015, PLOS One charged authors US$1,495[31] to publish an article. Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce the fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds.[32] This model has drawn criticism, however. In 2011 Richard Poynder posited that journals such as PLOS One that charge authors for publication rather than charging users for access may produce a conflict of interest that reduces peer review standards (accept more articles, earn more revenue).[33] Stevan Harnad instead argues for a "no fault" peer-review model, in which authors are charged for each round of peer review, regardless of the outcome, rather than for publication.[34] PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the first time in 2010,[35] largely due to the growth of PLOS One.


The "PLOS One model" has inspired a series of other journals,[36][37][38] having broad scope and low selectivity, now called megajournals, and a pay-to-publish model, usually published under Creative Commons licenses.


In September 2009, PLOS One received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers.[39] The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term prospects". In January 2010, it was announced that the journal would be included in the Journal Citation Reports,[40] and the journal received an impact factor of 4.411 in 2010. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2016 impact factor of 2.806.[41]

Abstracting and indexing

The articles are indexed in:[25]

Response to controversial publications

Alleged sexism in one peer review instance

On April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at the University of Sussex and Australian National University respectively, posted a rejection letter, which they said was sent to them by a peer reviewer for a journal they did not wish to name. The excerpt made negative comments about women's aptitude for science and advised Ingleby and Head to find male co-authors. Shortly afterward, the journal was reported to be PLOS One. By May 1, PLOS announced that it was severing ties with the reviewer responsible for the comments and asking the editor who relayed them to step down. PLOS One immediately issued a statement following the incident, written by PLOS One director Damian Pattinson, saying,

"I want to sincerely apologize for the distress the report caused the authors, and to make clear that we completely oppose the sentiments it expressed,"

He also stated that the journal was considering moving away from the tradition of anonymous peer review.[42]


On March 3, 2016, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article about the functioning of the human hand[43] due to outrage among the journal's readership over a reference to "Creator" inside the paper.[44] The authors, who received grants from the Chinese National Basic Research Program and National Natural Science Foundation of China for this work, responded by saying "Creator" is a poorly-translated idiom (造化(), literally "(that which) creates or transforms")[45] which means "nature" in the Chinese language. Despite the authors' protests, the article was retracted.[46] "Creator" is found in the paper in three sentences:

  • "The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way".
  • "Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator's invention".
  • "In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years".

A less sympathetic explanation for the use of "Creator" was suggested to The Chronicle of Higher Education by Chinese-language experts who noted that the academic editor listed on the paper, Renzhi Han, previously worked at the Chinese Evangelical Church in Iowa City.[47]

Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post presented a detailed analysis of the problem, which she named #CreatorGate, and concluded that the journal's hasty retraction may have been an even bigger offense than the publication of the paper in the first place.[48] To contrast PLOS One's handling of the problem, she used a 12-year history of retraction of the fraudulent paper on vaccine and autism by The Lancet and the lack of a retraction of a debunked study on "arsenic life" by Science.[49][50] Others added the history of the article in Nature on "water memory" that was not retracted either.[51]

Jonathan Eisen, chair of the advisory board of a sister journal PLOS Biology and an advocate for open-access, commended PLOS One for their prompt response on social media, which in his words "most journals pretend doesn't even exist".[52] David Knutson issued a statement about the paper processing at PLOS One, which praised the importance of post-publication peer review and described their intention to offer open signed reviews in order to ensure accountability of the process.[53] From March 2 to 9, the research article received total 67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS One site.[54] Signe Dean of SBS put #CreatorGate in perspective: it is not the most scandalous retraction in science, yet it shows how a social media outrage storm does expedite a retraction.[55]

The dissemination activity on social media within one week of publicity was:

  • 1,309 tweets which share the article on Twitter;
  • 7,432 posts, 1,516 shares and 4,570 Likes on Facebook.

The article was viewed 169,926 times on PLOS site in the first ten days of March, compared to 555 views in January and 116 views in February.[56]

On March 10, 2016, BioLogos, a website of a Christian advocacy group established by the 16th Director of the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins after publication of his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, started Blog series Faith and Science Seeking Understanding to review the controversy raised by #CreatorGate.[57] The series follows the accusations of anti-Christian/anti-intelligent design bias in the scientific world by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and David Klinghoffer of Evolution News and Views.[58][59] BioLogos authors argue that avoiding mentions of God in scientific literature is not a censorship but a rule of a successful game akin to the rules of soccer or basketball.[60][61]

Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy

On August 27, 2018, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article published two weeks earlier by Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman.[62] The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or "cluster outbreaks" in gender dysphoria among young people, called Rapid-onset gender disorder.[63] It consisted of a survey placed on three websites for concerned parents of children with gender dysphoria, asking for responses from parents whose children had experienced "sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21".[64] The study was criticized by transgender activists like Julia Serano and medical professionals like developmental and clinical psychologist[65] Diane Ehrensaft, as being politicized and having self-selected samples, as well as lacking clinical data or responses from the adolescents themselves.[66][67]

Following the PLOS One re-evaluation announcement, Brown University retracted a press release it had published highlighting the research.[68] A statement saying the retraction was due to "questions raised about research design and data collection" led news outlets like the National Review and researchers like the former Dean of Harvard Medical School Jeffrey Flier to talk about academic censorship, accusing Brown University of failing to defend the study.[69][70] On September 5, Brown updated its statement, supporting academic freedom and writing that the retraction was about academic standards, saying "Given the concerns raised about research design and methods, the most responsible course of action was to stop publicizing the work published in this particular instance. We would have done this regardless of the topic of the article."[71]

On March 19, 2019, PLOS One completed its review. Reviewer Angelo Brandelli Costa criticized the methods and conclusion of the study in a formal comment, saying, "The level of evidence produced by the Dr. Littman’s study cannot generate a new diagnostic criterion relative to the time of presentation of the demands of medical and social gender affirmation."[72] In a separate letter apologizing for the failure of peer review to address the issues with the article, PLOS One Editor-in-chief Joerg Heber said, "we have reached the conclusion that the study and resultant data reported in the article represent a valid contribution to the scientific literature. However, we have also determined that the study, including its goals, methodology, and conclusions, were not adequately framed in the published version, and that these needed to be corrected."[73]

The paper was republished with updated Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, but the Results section was mostly unchanged. In her correction, Littman emphasized that the article was "a study of parental observations which serves to develop hypotheses", saying "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time. This report did not collect data from the adolescents and young adults (AYAs) or clinicians and therefore does not validate the phenomenon. Additional research that includes AYAs, along with consensus among experts in the field, will be needed to determine if what is described here as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) will become a formal diagnosis."[74]


  1. ^ "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Archived from the original on March 2, 2007. Retrieved December 17, 2002.
  2. ^ "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Archived from the original on 2007-02-25.
  3. ^ Zivkovic, Bora. "Trackbacks are here!". Archived from the original on 2010-10-11. Retrieved 2015-03-15.
  4. ^ PLOS ONE Milestones Archived 2012-01-06 at the Wayback Machine, a timeline on Dipity
  5. ^ David Knutson (23 July 2012). "New PLOS look". PLOS BLOG. Public Library of Science. Archived from the original on 6 August 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2012.
  6. ^ a b Kaiser, Jocelyn (2014-06-04). "Output Drops at World's Largest Open Access Journal". Science Magazine. Retrieved 2015-10-26.
  7. ^ a b c Morrison, Heather (5 January 2011). "PLoS ONE: now the world's largest journal?". Poetic Economics Blog. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
  8. ^ Taylor, Mike. "It’s Not Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Communication." Discover Magazine. February 21, 2012. Retrieved on March 3, 2012.
  9. ^ Hoff, Krista (3 January 2013). "PLOS ONE Papers of 2012". everyONE Blog. Retrieved 21 May 2013.
  10. ^ Kayla Graham (2014-01-06). "Thanking Our Peer Reviewers – EveryONEEveryONE". Retrieved 2015-05-17.
  11. ^ "PLoS One Impact Factor|2016|2015|2014 - BioxBio". Retrieved 2016-10-17.
  12. ^ Davis, Phil (2016-02-02). "As PLOS ONE Shrinks, 2015 Impact Factor Expected to Rise". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2016-10-17.
  13. ^ Davis, Phil (2017-01-05). "PLOS ONE Output Drops Again In 2016". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2017-01-05.
  14. ^ Konkeil, Stacey (20 December 2011). "PLOS ONE: Five Years, Many Milestones". everyONE Blog. Retrieved 24 December 2011.
  15. ^ "A Publishing Milestone to Celebrate: 200,000 PLOS Research Articles and Counting | STM Publishing News". Retrieved 2017-09-27.
  16. ^ "Scientific Reports Overtakes PLOS ONE As Largest Megajournal - The Scholarly Kitchen". The Scholarly Kitchen. 2017-04-06. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  17. ^ "PLOS Reports $1.7M Loss In 2016 - The Scholarly Kitchen". The Scholarly Kitchen. 2017-11-27. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  18. ^ Kendall, Powell (11 February 2016). "Does it take too long to publish research?" (PDF). Nature. 530 (7589): 148–151. Bibcode:2016Natur.530..148P. doi:10.1038/530148a. PMID 26863966. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  19. ^ Himmelstein, Daniel (10 February 2016). "The history of publishing delays". Satoshi Village. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  20. ^ Poynder, Richard (15 June 2006). "Open Access: Stage Two". Open and Shut Blog. Retrieved 27 March 2011.
  21. ^ Jerram, Peter (8 May 2012). "Publisher of PLOS ONE moves to new Open-Access initiative". The official PLOS Blog. Retrieved 22 June 2012.
  22. ^ "Research Square hires Damian Pattinson, former Editorial Director of PLOS ONE | STM Publishing News". Retrieved 2016-09-17.
  23. ^ "PLOS appoints Dr. Joerg Heber Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE | The Official PLOS Blog". 2016-09-16. Retrieved 2016-09-17.
  24. ^ a b MacCallum, C. J. (2006). "ONE for All: The Next Step for PLOS". PLoS Biol. 4 (11): e401. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040401. PMC 1637059. PMID 17523266.
  25. ^ a b PLOS ONE Journal Information. (2012-09-04). Retrieved on 2013-06-20.
  26. ^ a b Giles, J. (2007). "Open-Access Journal Will Publish First, Judge Later". Nature. 445 (7123): 9. Bibcode:2007Natur.445....9G. doi:10.1038/445009a. PMID 17203032.
  27. ^ "Thanking PLOS ONE Peer Reviewers". PLOS ONE. Dec 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
  28. ^ "PLOS ONE Editorial and Peer-Review Process". PLOS ONE. 2008. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
  29. ^ Allen, Liz (January 19, 2011) "Welcome, Nature. Seriously", (WebCite)
  30. ^ Welcome message from Apple to IBM ([ WebCite])
  31. ^ "PLOS Publication Costs Update". PLOS ONE. 2015-09-22. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
  32. ^ "Publication Fees". PLOS. Retrieved 1 January 2015.
  33. ^ Poynder, Richard (7 March 2011). "PLOS ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing". Open and Shut Blog. Retrieved 27 March 2011.
  34. ^ Harnad, Stevan (June–July 2011). "No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed". D-Lib Magazine. 16 (7/8). doi:10.1045/july2010-harnad.
  35. ^ Peter Jerram (July 20, 2011). "2010 PLoS Progress Update". Archived from the original on January 16, 2012. Retrieved January 16, 2012.
  36. ^ Sitek, Dagmar; Bertelmann, Roland (2014). "Open Access: A State of the Art". In Sönke Bartling; Sascha Friesike. Opening Science. Springer. p. 139. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9. ISBN 978-3-319-00025-1.
  37. ^ Rhodri Jackson and Martin Richardson, "Gold open access: the future of the academic journal?", Chapter 9 in Cope and Phillip (2014), pp. 223–248. The Future of the Academic Journal, 2nd ed., Chandos Publishing, Jul 1, 2014, 478 pages.
  38. ^ Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon, Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges Archived 2014-06-02 at the Wayback Machine, March 2014, 69 pages. Final Report to a consortium of research funders comprising Jisc, Research Libraries UK, Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Science Fund, the Luxembourg National Research Fund, and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.
  39. ^ "ALPSP Awards 2010–finalists announced". ALPSP. Archived from the original on 11 December 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
  40. ^ Patterson, Mark (5 January 2010). "PLOS ONE indexed by Web of Science". PLOS Blogs. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
  41. ^ "JOURNALNAME". 2015 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Clarivate Analytics. 2016.
  42. ^ Bernstein, Rachel (2015-05-01). "PLOS ONE ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm". Science Magazine. Retrieved 2015-10-27.
  43. ^ Liu, Ming-Jin; Xiong, Cai-Hua; Xiong, Le; Huang, Xiao-Lin (January 5, 2016). "Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. 11 (1): e0146193. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1146193L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146193. PMC 4701170. PMID 26730579. (Retracted)
  44. ^ Davis, Nicola (7 March 2016). "Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted after furore". The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  45. ^ Mair, Victor (4 March 2016). "The hand of god". Language Log. Retrieved 10 March 2016.
  46. ^ The PLOS ONE Staff (March 4, 2016). "Retraction: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. 11 (3): e0151685. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1151685.. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151685. PMC 4778690. PMID 26943177.
  47. ^ Basken, Paul (7 March 2016). "Paper Praising 'Creator' Puts Fear of God in Open-Access Giant". The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  48. ^ Kaplan, Sarah (8 March 2016). "#CreatorGate: How a study on hands sparked an uproar about science, God and ethics in publishing". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  49. ^ Wakefield, AJ; Murch, SH; Anthony, A; Linnell, J; Casson, DM; Malik, M; Berelowitz, M; Dhillon, AP; Thomson, MA; Harvey, P; Valentine, A; Davies, SE; Walker-Smith, JA (1998). "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children". The Lancet. 351 (9103): 637–641. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID 9500320. Retrieved 2016-03-09. (Retracted)
  50. ^ Wolfe-Simon, Felisa; Blum, Jodi Switzer; Kulp, Thomas R.; Gordon, Gwyneth W.; Hoeft, Shelley E.; Pett-Ridge, Jennifer; Stolz, John F.; Webb, Samuel M.; Weber, Peter K.; Davies, P. C. W.; Anbar, A. D.; Oremland, R. S. (2 December 2010). "A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus". Science. 332 (6034): 1163–1166. Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1163W. doi:10.1126/science.1197258. PMID 21127214.
  51. ^ Cressey, Daniel (10 March 2016). "Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern. Apparently creationist research prompts soul searching over process of editing and peer review" (PDF). Nature. 531 (7593): 143. Bibcode:2016Natur.531..143C. doi:10.1038/531143f. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
  52. ^ Kotack, Madison (3 March 2016). "A Science Journal Invokes 'the Creator,' and Science Pushes Back". Wired. Wired. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  53. ^ Schneider, Leonid (4 March 2016). "Hand of God paper retracted: PLOS ONE "could not stand by the pre-publication assessment"". For Better Science. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  54. ^ Liu, MJ; Xiong, CH; Xiong, L; Huang, XL (9 March 2016). "Reader Comments on Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. 11 (1): e0146193. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1146193L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146193. PMC 4701170. PMID 26730579.
  55. ^ Dean, Signe (7 March 2016). "Not just #creatorgate: Most scandalous retractions in science". SBS. Retrieved 2016-03-09.
  56. ^ Liu, MJ; Xiong, CH; Xiong, L; Huang, XL (10 March 2016). "Metrics of Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". PLOS ONE. 11 (1): e0146193. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1146193L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146193. PMC 4701170. PMID 26730579.
  57. ^ "Faith and Science Seeking Understanding: Reviewing #Creatorgate - Blog Series". BioLogos. 10 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  58. ^ Ham, Ken (6 March 2016). "Secularist Intolerance Against Scientific Paper That Briefly Mentions Creator". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  59. ^ Klinghoffer, David (7 March 2016). "PLOS ONE "Creator" Scandal Enters Witch-hunt Territory". Evolution News and Views. Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  60. ^ Applegate, Kathryn (10 March 2016). "Reviewing #Creatorgate: Why a scientist shouldn't use the word "Creator" in their articles". BioLogos. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  61. ^ Stump, Jim (10 March 2016). "Reviewing #Creatorgate: How Science is Like Soccer". BioLogos. Retrieved 2016-03-12.
  62. ^ "Statement by PLOS ONE staff". 2018-08-27. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  63. ^ Littman, Lisa (2018-08-16). "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports". PLOS One. Retrieved 2019-03-21. line feed character in |title= at position 44 (help)
  64. ^ "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria: New study recruiting parents". 2016-07-02. Archived from the original on 2018-03-09. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  65. ^ "Diane Ehrensaft, Ph.D." Huffington Post. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  66. ^ "Why are so many teenage girls appearing in gender clinics?". The Economist. 2018-09-01. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  67. ^ Serano, Julia (2018-08-22). "Everything You Need to Know About Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria". Medium. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  68. ^ "Brown University Statement — Monday, Aug. 27, 2018". 2018-08-22. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  69. ^ Kearns, Madeleine (2018-09-06). "Why Did Brown University Bow to Trans Activists?". National Review. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  70. ^ Flier, Jeffrey (2018-08-31). "As a Former Dean of Harvard Medical School, I Question Brown's Failure to Defend Lisa Littman". Quillette. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  71. ^ "Expanded Brown University Statement – Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2018". 2018-09-05. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  72. ^ Costa, Angello Brandelli (2019-03-19). "Formal comment on: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria". PLOS One. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  73. ^ Heber, Joerg (2019-03-19). "Correcting the scientific record on gender incongruence – and an apology". PLOS One. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  74. ^ Littman, Lisa (2018-08-16). "Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria". PLOS One. Retrieved 2019-03-21.

External links


Aerosteon is a genus of megaraptoran dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period of Argentina. Its remains were discovered in 1996 in the Anacleto Formation, dating to the Santonian stage (about 84 million years ago). The type and only known species is A. riocoloradense. Its specific name indicates that its remains were found 1 km (0.6 miles) north of the Río Colorado, in Mendoza Province, Argentina.

They show evidence of a bird-like respiratory system. Aerosteon's name can be translated as air bone and derives from Greek ἀήρ (aer, "air") and ὀστέον (osteon, "bone"). Though the species name was originally published as "riocoloradensis", Greek ὀστέον is neuter gender, so according to the ICZN the species name must be riocoloradense to match.


Alphaproteobacteria is a class of bacteria in the phylum Proteobacteria (See also bacterial taxonomy). Its members are highly diverse and possess few commonalities, but nevertheless share a common ancestor. Like all Proteobacteria, its members are gram-negative and some of its intracellular parasitic members lack peptidoglycan and are consequently gram variable.


Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera; with their forelimbs adapted as wings, they are the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. Bats are more manoeuvrable than birds, flying with their very long spread-out digits covered with a thin membrane or patagium. The smallest bat, and arguably the smallest extant mammal, is Kitti's hog-nosed bat, which is 29–34 mm (1.14–1.34 in) in length, 15 cm (5.91 in) across the wings and 2–2.6 g (0.07–0.09 oz) in mass. The largest bats are the flying foxes and the giant golden-crowned flying fox, Acerodon jubatus, which can weigh 1.6 kg (4 lb) and have a wingspan of 1.7 m (5 ft 7 in).

The second largest order of mammals, bats comprise about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide, with over 1,200 species. These were traditionally divided into two suborders: the largely fruit-eating megabats, and the echolocating microbats. But more recent evidence has supported dividing the order into Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, with megabats as members of the former along with several species of microbats. Many bats are insectivores, and most of the rest are frugivores (fruit-eaters). A few species feed on animals other than insects; for example, the vampire bats feed on blood. Most bats are nocturnal, and many roost in caves or other refuges; it is uncertain whether bats have these behaviours to escape predators. Bats are present throughout the world, with the exception of extremely cold regions. They are important in their ecosystems for pollinating flowers and dispersing seeds; many tropical plants depend entirely on bats for these services.

Bats provide humans with some benefits, at the cost of some threats. Bat dung has been mined as guano from caves and used as fertiliser. Bats consume insect pests, reducing the need for pesticides. They are sometimes numerous enough to serve as tourist attractions, and are used as food across Asia and the Pacific Rim. They are natural reservoirs of many pathogens, such as rabies; and since they are highly mobile, social, and long-lived, they can readily spread disease. In many cultures, bats are popularly associated with darkness, malevolence, witchcraft, vampires, and death.


Cluster of differentiation 97 is a protein also known as BL-Ac[F2] encoded by the ADGRE5 gene. CD97 is a member of the adhesion GPCR family.

Adhesion GPCRs are characterized by an extended extracellular region often possessing N-terminal protein modules that is linked to a TM7 region via a domain known as the GPCR-Autoproteolysis INducing (GAIN) domain.CD97 is widely expressed on, among others, hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, immune cells, epithelial cells, muscle cells as well as their malignant counterparts.

In the case of CD97 the N-terminal domains consist of alternatively spliced epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains. Alternative splicing has been observed for this gene and three variants have been found. The N-terminal fragment of CD97 contains 3-5 EGF-like domains in human and 3-4 EGF-like domains in mice.

Creaky voice

In linguistics, creaky voice (sometimes called laryngealisation, pulse phonation, girl grunt, vocal fry, or glottal fry) is a special kind of phonation in which the arytenoid cartilages in the larynx are drawn together; as a result, the vocal folds are compressed rather tightly, becoming relatively slack and compact. They normally vibrate irregularly at 20–50 pulses per second, about two octaves below the frequency of normal voicing, and the airflow through the glottis is very slow. Although creaky voice may occur with very low pitch, as at the end of a long intonation unit, it can also occur with a higher pitch.

Creaky voice is prevalent as a peer-group affectation among young women in the United States and United Kingdom. For example, researcher Ikuko Patricia Yuasa suggests that the tendency is a product of young women trying to infuse their speech with gravitas by means of reaching for the male register and found that "college-age Americans ... perceive female creaky voice as hesitant, nonaggressive, and informal but also educated, urban-oriented, and upwardly mobile." However, according to a 2012 study in PLOS ONE, young women using creaky voice are viewed as less competent, less educated, less trustworthy, less attractive and less employable. Some suggest that creaky voice can function as a marker of parentheticals in conversations; creaky voice may indicate that certain phrases, when uttered with creaky voice, contain less central information.In some languages, such as Jalapa Mazatec, creaky voice has a phonemic status; that is, the presence or absence of creaky voice can change the meaning of a word. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, creaky voice of a phone is represented by a diacritical tilde U+0330  ̰ COMBINING TILDE BELOW, for example [d̰]. The Danish prosodic feature stød is an example of a form of laryngealisation that has a phonemic function.

A slight degree of laryngealisation, occurring in some Korean consonants for example, is called "stiff voice".


A finger is a limb of the human body and a type of digit, an organ of manipulation and sensation found in the hands of humans and other primates.

Normally humans have five digits, the bones of which are termed phalanges, on each hand, although some people have more or fewer than five due to congenital disorders such as polydactyly or oligodactyly, or accidental or medical amputations. The first digit is the thumb, followed by index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and little finger or pinky. According to different definitions, the thumb can be called a finger, or not.

Genetic history of Italy

The genetic history of the current Italians is greatly influenced by geography and history. The ancestors of Italians are mostly Indo-Europeans, with particular reference to the Italic peoples, the most notable of them being the Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Sicels and others. It is generally agreed that the invasions that followed for centuries the fall of the Roman Empire did not significantly alter the local gene pool, because of the relatively small number of Germanics, or other migrants, compared to the large population of what constituted Roman Italy.Multiple DNA studies confirmed that genetic variation in Italy is clinal, going from the Eastern to the Western Mediterranean (with the Sardinians as outliers in Italy and Europe, reflecting the pre-Roman Nuragic ancestry) and that all Italians are made up of the same ancestral components, but in different proportions, related to Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements of Europe.In their admixture ratios, the Italians are similar to other Southern Europeans, and that is being of Early Neolithic Farmer ancestry, with the southern Italians being closest to the Greeks (as the historical region of Magna Graecia bears witness to), the northern Italians being closest to the Spaniards and southern French, and the central Italians occupying a cluster between the two. The only exceptions are the Sardinians, who form a distinct isolate of their own, and certain northeastern Italian populations (mostly from the region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia) who cluster with Germanic and Slavic speaking Central Europeans from Austria and Slovenia.There is a noticeable genetic difference between Sardinians, Northern Italians and Southern Italians. People from the North seem to be close to the French population, while those from the South overlap with Balkan and other southern European populations. Yet, the genetic distance between Northern and Southern Italians, although pretty large from a single European “nationality” point of view, is only roughly equal to the one between Northern Germans and Southern Germans. The genetic gap between the northern and southern Italians is filled by an intermediate Central Italian cluster, creating a continuous cline of variation down the peninsula and the islands (with the Sardinians as outliers in Italy and Europe) that mirrors geography.Molecular anthropology found no evidence of significant northern European geneflow into the Italian peninsula over the last 1500 years. On the other hand, the bulk of Italian ethnogenesis occurred prior to Germanic or non-European invasions. DNA studies show that only the Greek colonization of Southern Italy had a lasting effect on the local genetic landscape.

Google Scholar

Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online academic journals and books, conference papers, theses and dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other scholarly literature, including court opinions and patents. While Google does not publish the size of Google Scholar's database, scientometric researchers estimated it to contain roughly 389 million documents including articles, citations and patents making it the world's largest academic search engine in January 2018. Previously, the size was estimated at 160 million documents as of May 2014. An earlier statistical estimate published in PLOS ONE using a Mark and recapture method estimated approximately 80–90% coverage of all articles published in English with an estimate of 100 million. This estimate also determined how many documents were freely available on the web.

Google Scholar has been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals in its index.

Haplogroup C (mtDNA)

In human mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup C is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.


Hualianceratops is a genus of herbivorous ceratopsian dinosaur that lived about 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic epoch in what is now western China. The single species, H. wucaiwanensis was described in 2015. It is thought to have been about as large as a spaniel.

In 2002, an expedition by the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology and the George Washington University in the region of Wucaiwan in Xinjiang discovered the skeleton of a small dinosaur. The fossil was prepared by Xiang Lishi, Yu Tao and Ding Xiaoqing.In 2015, the type species Hualianceratops wucaiwanensis was named and described by Han Fenglu, Catherine A. Forster, James M. Clark, and Xu Xing. The generic name combines the Chinese hua, "ornamental", and lian, "face", a reference to the ornamentation of the jaw bones, with ceratops, Latinised Greek for "hornface", a usual suffix in the names of ceratopsians. The specific name refers to the provenance at Wucaiwan, the "five colour bay". The species was named in the electronic publication PLoS ONE and the therefore mandatory Life Science Identifiers are D96319BA-6380-47D6-9512-5BDA15221A00 for the genus and DEEB3095-CB69-47CD-91FC-2D01D9F429D5 for the species. Hualianceratops was one of eighteen dinosaur taxa from 2015 to be described in open access or free-to-read journals. It is a probable member of the family Chaoyangsauridae.The holotype, IVPP V18641, was found in a layer of the upper Shishugou Formation dating from the Oxfordian. It consists of a partial skeleton with skull and lower jaws. It mainly preserves the rear sides of the head, some sacral vertebrae, the right lower hindlimb, a left calf bone and the left foot.

Molecular communication

Molecular communications systems use the presence or absence of a selected type of molecule to digitally encode messages. The molecules are delivered into communications media such as air and water for transmission. The technique also is not subject to the requirement of using antennas that are sized to a specific ratio of the wavelength of the signal. Molecular communication signals can be made biocompatible and require very little energy


Pachycephalosaurus (; meaning "thick-headed lizard," from Greek pachys-/παχυς- "thick", kephale/κεφαλη "head" and sauros/σαυρος "lizard") is a genus of pachycephalosaurid dinosaurs. The type species, P. wyomingensis, is the only known species. It lived during the Late Cretaceous Period (Maastrichtian stage) of what is now North America. Remains have been excavated in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. It was a herbivorous creature which is primarily known from a single skull and a few extremely thick skull roofs, though more complete fossils have been found in recent years. Pachycephalosaurus was one of the last non-avian dinosaurs before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Another dinosaur, Tylosteus of western North America, has been synonymized with Pachycephalosaurus, as have the genera Stygimoloch and Dracorex in some recent studies.

Like other pachycephalosaurids, Pachycephalosaurus was a bipedal herbivore with an extremely thick skull roof. It possessed long hindlimbs and small forelimbs. Pachycephalosaurus is the largest known pachycephalosaur. The thick skull domes of Pachycephalosaurus and related genera gave rise to the hypothesis that pachycephalosaurs used their skulls in intra-species combat. This hypothesis has been disputed in recent years.


PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific mega journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. It is published by a company of the same name that was co-founded by CEO Jason Hoyt (formerly at Mendeley) and publisher Peter Binfield (formerly at PLOS ONE), with financial backing of US$950,000 from O'Reilly Media and O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures. It was officially launched in June 2012, started accepting submissions on December 3, 2012, and published its first articles on February 12, 2013. The company is a member of CrossRef, CLOCKSS, ORCID, and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. The company's offices are in Corte Madera (California, USA), and London (Great Britain).

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), named by Lisa Littman, is a hypothesized subtype of gender dysphoria that is socially mediated. In a non-peer reviewed Poster Abstract , Littman utilizes the term to describe the phenomenon of younger people, who suddenly begin to report symptoms of gender dysphoria and begin to self identify as transgender after displaying no previous signs of gender identity uncertainty. Littman further speculates that rapid onset gender dysphoria could be a "social coping mechanism" for other disorders, such as depression and anxiety caused by adolescent trauma. Following corrections issued by PLOS one, the sole peer reviewed study on the hypothesized phenomenon asserts that ROGD has not been clinically validated.


The Rickettsiales, informally called rickettsias, are an order of small Alphaproteobacteria that are endosymbionts of eukaryotic cells. Some are notable pathogens, including Rickettsia, which causes a variety of diseases in humans, and Ehrlichia, which causes diseases in livestock. Another genus of well-known Rickettsiales are the Wolbachia, which infect approximately two-thirds of all arthropods and nearly all filarial nematodes. Genetic studies support the endosymbiotic theory according to which mitochondria and related organelles developed from members of this group.The Rickettsiales are difficult to cultivate, because they rely on eukaryotic host cells for their survival.

Scientific Reports

Scientific Reports is an online open access, scientific mega journal published by Nature Research, covering all areas of the natural sciences. The journal aims to assess solely the scientific validity of a submitted paper, rather than its perceived importance, significance or impact.On 23 August 2016, a blog post on the Scholarly Kitchen mentioned that the journal was likely to become the largest one in the world, overtaking PLOS ONE. This indeed occurred in September 2016 and was later confirmed in the first quarter of 2017.

Sexual selection in birds

Sexual selection in birds concerns how birds have evolved a variety of mating behaviors, with the peacock tail being perhaps the most famous example of sexual selection and the Fisherian runaway. Commonly occurring sexual dimorphisms such as size and color differences are energetically costly attributes that signal competitive breeding situations. Many types of avian sexual selection have been identified; intersexual selection, also known as female choice; and intrasexual competition, where individuals of the more abundant sex compete with each other for the privilege to mate. Sexually selected traits often evolve to become more pronounced in competitive breeding situations until the trait begins to limit the individual’s fitness. Conflicts between an individual fitness and signaling adaptations ensure that sexually selected ornaments such as plumage coloration and courtship behavior are “honest” traits. Signals must be costly to ensure that only good-quality individuals can present these exaggerated sexual ornaments and behaviors.Bird species often demonstrate intersexual selection, perhaps because - due to their lightweight body structures - fights between males may be ineffective or impractical. Therefore, male birds commonly use the following methods to try to seduce the females:

Colour: Some species have ornate, diverse, and often colourful feathers.

Song: Male birdsong provides an important way of protecting territory (intrasexual selection).

Nest construction: In some species, males build nests that females subject to rigorous inspection, choosing the male that makes the most attractive nest.

Dance: Males dance in front of females. Cranes provide a well-known example.As a propagandist, the cock behaves as though he knew that it was as advantageous to impress the males as the females of his species, and a sprightly bearing with fine feathers and triumphant song are quite as well adapted for war-propaganda as for courtship. —Ronald Fisher, 1930

In some bird species, both the male and the female contribute a great deal to offspring-care. In these cases, the male and female will be continuously assessing each other based on sexual characteristics. In the blue-footed booby, the females tend to choose males with brighter blue feet, because birds with brighter feet are younger, and thus have greater fertility and ability to provide paternal care. When researchers put make-up on the males' feet to make them look duller after the laying of the first eggs, their mates consequently laid smaller second eggs, which shows that female boobies continuously evaluate their mates' reproductive value. Males also vary their behaviour based on the females' foot colour. Males mated to females with brighter feet are more willing to incubate their eggs.

World Register of Marine Species

The World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) is a taxonomic database that aims to provide an authoritative and comprehensive list of names of marine organisms.


This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.