Back before the new year, I
reviewed all 17 of the new fossil taxa that were published in
PLoS ONE during 2011. Here, I look at the general trends for paleontology in the journal, both last year and over its entire history.
Topics and Biases
 |
| Paleontological Topics in PLoS ONE, 2011 |
The chart above shows the general topics covered by
PLoS ONE papers in paleontology during 2011 (for those of you adding the numbers, a handful were counted in two categories). Just
as for new taxa, there is a major skew towards archosaurs. Much as I love dinosaurs, we really need to get a broader diversity of taxonomic coverage. Part of this is probably the result of different cultures of publishing among different groups of specialists - dinosaur workers are comfortable with
PLoS ONE, whereas trilobite workers aren't. We need some pioneers in invertebrate paleontology, paleoicthyology, and elsewhere.
The Big Picture
By my count, there were around 65 paleontology-related articles published in
PLoS ONE last year (2011). This is up from 39 articles in 2010, and reflects a continuing increase since
PLoS ONE was founded in 2006.
 |
| Trends in Number of Paleontology Papers at PLoS ONE |
Compare this count of 65 for
PLoS ONE with 95 papers in
Journal of Paleontology and 120 papers in
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology during 2011.
PLoS ONE is still smaller than some "conventional" journals, but I think it is safe to say that it may overtake these alternatives in annual volume within the next year or two. Whether or not this is a good thing for
PLoS ONE and paleontology is another question - if the quality of the papers submitted to the journal as well as the editing process can be maintained (or improved where necessary), perhaps yes.
Many paleontologists clearly are warming up to the idea of
PLoS ONE. It is tough to know what factors are behind this - whether it's availability of high-resolution color figures, cost-effective outlets for lengthy papers, frustration with "conventional" journals, the impact factor, broader acceptance of open access, or something else altogether. Other paleontology journals - and paleontological societies that publish their own journals - would be wise to see what they can do to match or improve upon the attractive points of
PLoS ONE. As much as I love
PLoS ONE, the last thing I want is a publishing monoculture. Unless others journals adapt, though, this may be the result.
[note: although I am a volunteer editor at the journal, this post reflects only my personal opinions]
4 comments:
Many paleontologists clearly are warming up to the idea of PLoS ONE. It is tough to know what factors are behind this - whether it's availability of high-resolution color figures, cost-effective outlets for lengthy papers, frustration with "conventional" journals, the impact factor, broader acceptance of open access, or something else altogether.
For what it's worth, the two main factors that are going to result in my sending my next descriptive paper to PLoS ONE are the open access and the unlimited number of very high resolution colour images. The latter seems crucial for truly useful descriptive work; it's pretty sad how used we've all become to tiny greyscale thumbnails.
Other paleontology journals - and paleontological societies that publish their own journals - would be wise to see what they can do to match or improve upon the attractive points of PLoS ONE. As much as I love PLoS ONE, the last thing I want is a publishing monoculture. Unless others journals adapt, though, this may be the result.
I don't want a single publisher dominating scientific publication. But I do want something pretty similar to PLoS culture (CC-BY open access, using the e-only nature of the medium) from other publishers. And happily, that does seem to be where we're headed.
I think the high-res colo(u)r figures is a huge plus - in preparing B&W vs. color versions of some fossils I'm working on, it is absolutely staggering how much information is lost during the conversion process.
Just out of interest, of the 65 papers, how many paid for the open access charges levied by PLoS?
I don't know for certain, Paul. As an academic editor, there is a very tight firewall between that information and me (as there should be).
According to this page, 90% of contributions have paid full OA fees. I don't know how recent that figure is, though. As an additional caveat, the 90% value is for the journal as a whole, and I suspect it is not representative of subfields like paleontology.
Speaking anecdotally, most of the papers I have published in the journal have had at least a partial waiver requested and granted. This seems to be not uncommon.
Post a Comment