Hubbry Logo
PLOS MedicinePLOS MedicineMain
Open search
PLOS Medicine
Community hub
PLOS Medicine
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
PLOS Medicine
PLOS Medicine
PLOS Medicine
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

PLOS Medicine
DisciplineMedicine
LanguageEnglish
Edited byHelen Lumbard
Publication details
History2004–present
Publisher
FrequencyWeekly
Yes
LicenseCreative Commons Attribution License
9.9 (2024)
Standard abbreviations
ISO 4PLOS Med.
Indexing
ISSN1549-1277 (print)
1549-1676 (web)
LCCN2004212194
OCLC no.54674092
Links

PLOS Medicine (formerly styled PLoS Medicine)[1] is a peer-reviewed weekly medical journal covering the full spectrum of the medical sciences. It began operation on October 19, 2004, as the second journal of the Public Library of Science (PLOS), a non-profit open access publisher. All content in PLOS Medicine is published under the Creative Commons "by-attribution" license. To fund the journal, the publication's business model requires in most cases that authors pay publication fees. The journal was published online and in a printed format until 2005 and is now only published online. The journal's acting chief editor is Clare Stone, who replaced the previous chief editor, Larry Peiperl, in 2018.

Aims and scope

[edit]

The journal's initial aim was to provide an open-access alternative to existing top-tier journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet and has concentrated on publishing papers on diseases that take the greatest toll on health globally.[2] In 2009 the journal reaffirmed its scope and noted that it would use an evidence-based approach to give highest priority to studies on diseases and risk factors that cause the greatest burden worldwide.[3]

From the outset the journal noted that it would not be part of "the cycle of dependency that has formed between journals and the pharmaceutical industry".[2] The journal does not publish advertisements for pharmaceutical products or medical devices and the journal's open-access license means that it cannot benefit from exclusive reprint sales.[2]

Abstracting and indexing

[edit]

The journal is abstracted and indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE/PubMed,[4] the Science Citation Index Expanded, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, and BIOSIS Previews.[5] According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal had a 2014 impact factor of 14.429, ranking it 7th out of 153 journals in the category "Medicine, General & Internal".[6]

Notable articles

[edit]

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)

[edit]

In 2005 PLOS Medicine published an essay by John P. A. Ioannidis entitled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".[7] The essay used a simulation approach to demonstrate that for most study designs and settings it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true due to inherent biases in the way that modern science is conducted. This paper has met much approval, though Goodman and Greenland criticized it in a short comment[8] and a longer analysis.[9] Ioannidis has answered this critique.[10] A profile of Ioannidis' work including a discussion of his 2005 paper appeared in the November 2010 issue of The Atlantic.[11]

Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk (2005)

[edit]

The first randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of male circumcision on female to male HIV transmission was published in 2005 by Bertran Auvert and colleagues in PLOS Medicine.[12] The Lancet a leading medical journal rejected this paper because of ethical concerns[13] around how the trial was conducted before PLOS Medicine accepted it. The trial was stopped early by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board who advised the investigators to interrupt the trial and offer circumcision to the control group. The trial estimated that male circumcision protected 60% (95% CI: 32%–76%) for female-to-male HIV transmission.

The results of this trial along with two others led to the World Health Organization (WHO) assessing the evidence for male circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.[14] The WHO and UNAIDS subsequently issued recommendations concerning male circumcision and HIV/AIDS[15] including suggestions for government strategic plans, advocacy challenges and exploring the role of new technologies for voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) such as Prepex and other medical devices.[16][17] Several Ministries of Health along with key stakeholders have committed to scaling up VMMC for HIV prevention in Southern and Eastern Africa.[18]

Wyeth Ghostwriting Scandal (2009/2010)

[edit]

In July 2009, a United States federal court decision resulted in the release of approximately 1500 documents detailing how articles highlighting specific marketing messages written by unattributed writers, but "authored" by academics, are strategically placed in the medical literature – a practice known as ghostwriting. To release these documents, PLOS Medicine, represented by the public interest law firm Public Justice, and The New York Times, acted as "intervenors" in litigation against menopausal hormone manufacturers by women who developed breast cancer while taking hormones. PLOS Medicine argued that sealed documents identified during the discovery process for the court case, which demonstrated the practice of ghostwriting, should be made available to the public.[19][20]

The documents were initially made publicly available on the PLOS Medicine website but they are now available as part of the Drug Industry Documents Archive at the University of California, San Francisco.[21] In 2010 PLOS Medicine published the first academic analysis of the documents by Adriane Fugh-Berman.[22] Her article revealed that the pharmaceutical company Wyeth used ghostwritten articles to mitigate the perceived risks of breast cancer associated with menopausal hormone therapy (HT), to defend the unsupported cardiovascular "benefits" of HT, and to promote off-label, unproven uses of HT such as the prevention of dementia, Parkinson's disease, vision problems, and wrinkles. The article was subsequently covered by The Guardian.[23]

Tamiflu clinical trial data sharing (2012)

[edit]

In April 2012 PLOS Medicine published an article by three researchers who were involved in ongoing updates of a Cochrane Collaboration review of neuraminidase inhibitors for treating influenza, describing their experience of trying to gain access to clinical study reports for the antiviral Tamiflu (oseltamivir) from the drug's manufacturer Roche.[24] The article outlined the need for access to all clinical trial data held by pharmaceutical companies and regulators, and detailed reasons given by Roche for not sharing data on Tamiflu.

In a commissioned perspective article published in the same issue of PLOS Medicine, regulators from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other national regulatory bodies outlined a shift in their stance on access to clinical trial data but also highlighted challenges that would need to be overcome.[25][26][27] The regulators noted, "[w]e consider it neither desirable nor realistic to maintain the status quo of limited availability of regulatory trials data" and concluded, "[w]e welcome debate on these issues, and remain confident that satisfactory solutions can be found to make complete trial data available in a way that will be in the best interest of public health".

The article marked a move towards the proactive disclosure of clinical trial data and led to the EMA holding a workshop to establish how this could be done.[28][29][30] At the workshop Guido Rasi, the EMA's Executive Director, announced "[t]oday represents the first step in delivering our vision. We are not here to decide if we will publish clinical-trial data, only how. We need to do this to rebuild trust and confidence in the whole system".[31][32] PLOS Medicine's chief editor, Virginia Barbour, was an invited speaker at the workshop representing the media.[32][33]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

PLOS Medicine

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
is a peer-reviewed, open-access published monthly by the , focusing on original and analyses in with an emphasis on biomedical, environmental, social, and political determinants of health. Launched in October 2004, the journal prioritizes articles of outstanding medical importance that address challenges, including and policy-relevant findings, to advance clinical understanding and healthcare delivery. The journal's open-access model ensures that all content is freely available immediately upon publication, supporting PLOS's broader mission to accelerate scientific progress by removing barriers to knowledge dissemination. It publishes a range of article types, including articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and editorials, with rigorous emphasizing relevance to clinicians, policymakers, and researchers worldwide. Notable for its high , PLOS Medicine has influenced discussions through publications on topics like burdens, intervention efficacy, and health inequities, though its academic institutional origins warrant scrutiny for potential biases in topic selection favoring certain narratives. While celebrated for democratizing access to high-quality , the journal operates within an open-access that relies on article processing charges, raising questions about and equity in , particularly for researchers from low-resource settings. Its editorial policies have evolved to align more closely with pressing world health priorities, as restated in 2009, underscoring a commitment to impactful over volume.

History

Founding of PLOS and Origins

The Public Library of Science () originated from an open letter circulated in 2000 by biomedical researchers Harold Varmus, , and Michael B. Eisen, which called for the scientific community to create a public library offering free, searchable access to the full published record of research in medicine and the life sciences. The letter argued that restricting access to publicly funded research hindered scientific progress and knowledge integration, pledging signatories to boycott journals that did not deposit articles in public archives like within six months of starting September 2001. It ultimately garnered signatures from over 34,000 scientists across 180 countries, highlighting widespread frustration with subscription-based models that prioritized profits over dissemination. When publishers failed to respond adequately to the petition, the founders established as a in 2001 to operationalize publishing, initially raising funds through advocacy and grants to launch peer-reviewed journals under a that allowed free reuse with attribution. 's inaugural journal, , debuted in October 2003, demonstrating viability by attracting high-impact submissions without reader fees, funded instead by article processing charges paid by authors or institutions. Building on this model, PLOS Medicine was launched in October 2004 as the organization's second journal, specifically targeting medicine to counter the paywalls of established titles like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, with an emphasis on rigorous peer review of clinically relevant research while ensuring immediate global availability. The journal's origins reflected PLOS's broader critique of access barriers in biomedicine, where delayed or restricted dissemination could impede public health responses, and it quickly positioned itself as a venue for original research, policy analysis, and debates on evidence-based medicine.

Launch and Early Years (2004–2010)

PLOS Medicine launched its inaugural issue on October 19, 2004, as the second open-access journal from the Public Library of Science, building on the success of introduced the previous year. The journal adopted a fully open-access model financed through article processing charges paid by authors or their institutions, aiming to make high-quality freely available without subscription barriers. Virginia Barbour served as one of the three founding editors, guiding the initial editorial direction alongside a board drawn from global medical expertise. The launch editorial, "Prescription for a Healthy Journal," articulated the journal's scope: publishing original research, systematic reviews, and policy analyses with direct relevance to patient care, , and clinical practice, while emphasizing underrepresented priorities such as diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Content categories included peer-reviewed research articles, s, perspectives, and policy forums to foster debate on medical evidence and its societal implications. Early issues prioritized rigorous , with an initial acceptance rate reflecting selectivity comparable to established journals like The Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine. Reception in 2004 was generally favorable within scientific and publishing communities, praised for advancing open access amid criticisms of traditional paywalled models that limited dissemination of taxpayer-funded research. Commentators highlighted the inaugural issue's diverse, high-caliber content as evidence of PLOS Medicine's potential to compete with legacy titles, though skeptics questioned the long-term viability of the author-fee structure without ongoing subsidies. A landmark early publication was John P. A. Ioannidis's August 2005 article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," which critiqued statistical power and bias in biomedical research, amassing thousands of citations and influencing discussions on research reproducibility. From 2005 to 2010, the journal expanded its output, issuing monthly volumes while maintaining under licenses, and critiqued metrics like the for distorting publishing incentives, as noted in a 2006 arguing for alternative assessments of scientific . Submission volumes grew, reflecting increasing author trust in the model, though editorial policies emphasized transparency in conflicts of interest and to counter biases in . By 2010, PLOS Medicine had solidified its role in the , contributing to broader shifts in despite ongoing debates over funding sustainability.

Evolution and Recent Developments (2011–Present)

Following its early years, intensified efforts to elevate reporting standards in , issuing editorials in 2011 advocating for protocols and registration in systematic reviews to enhance transparency and reduce bias. The journal also critiqued industry influences on authorship guidelines that year, highlighting how uniform criteria like ICMJE could be manipulated to obscure contributions. These initiatives aligned with broader goals to foster rigorous, reproducible science amid growing concerns over practices. In 2014, commemorating its tenth anniversary, PLOS Medicine's editors underscored two key imperatives: achieving universal access to high-quality medical literature and ensuring its equitable production, acknowledging that had progressed but faced ongoing systemic hurdles in traditional publishing models. The journal's peaked at 14.429 that year, reflecting strong citation influence in general medicine. By 2017, amid shifts, the editorial board was renewed with updated priorities emphasizing conflict-affected regions, migration, and impacts on , aiming to guide toward pressing needs. Through the late and early , Medicine sustained high selectivity, with impact factors hovering around 11 (e.g., 11.675 in 2017, 10.500 in 2019, 11.069 in 2020), before declining to 8.71 by 2024, amid broader trends in citation metrics across open-access journals. In September 2025, updated its editorial policy for database to clarify ethical requirements for publicly accessible , reinforcing standards. Concurrently, the journal articulated a forward-looking vision prioritizing evidence generation for real-world impact and equity in . These developments underscore Medicine's adaptation to evolving scientific demands while upholding its foundational open-access ethos.

Aims and Scope

Core Mission and Objectives

PLOS Medicine operates as a peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to publishing and commentary addressing major challenges, with a focus on the biomedical, environmental, social, and political determinants of . As part of the Public Library of Science (), a non-profit , the journal aligns with the broader mission to accelerate by removing barriers to knowledge dissemination, promoting inclusion, and enabling the reuse of scientific outputs to transform , , and practice. Its objectives emphasize advancing clinical practice, , or pathophysiological understanding through work that holds potential to benefit outcomes across diverse global settings, including high-priority topics such as conditions and factors responsible for substantial losses in healthy life years worldwide. The journal's editorial vision prioritizes rigorous, relevant, and equitable research capable of driving meaningful change in , reflecting principles of diversity, , and actionable . Core objectives include promoting translational medicine by highlighting novel mechanistic insights into processes and ensuring publications have direct implications for patient care, , or agendas. To achieve this, maintains high selectivity, publishing approximately 10% of submissions after initial screening, with only about 20% of those invited for full review proceeding to research articles, thereby focusing on substantial advances with broad international relevance. Central to its priorities are three pillars: evidence, impact, and equity. Evidence entails high-quality, policy-relevant that addresses major disease burdens and expands into underrepresented areas, such as , , and climate-health intersections, while emphasizing actionable interventions and analysis. Impact seeks real-world transformations in policy, clinical practice, and community outcomes, supported through formats like Policy Forums and Health in Action that underscore practical applications. Equity involves fostering inclusion by diversifying editorial teams, authors, and reviewers; supporting from underrepresented regions and disciplines; and combating practices like parachute science, alongside enhancing transparency in clinical trial reporting and preprint integration to reflect global communities' needs.

Published Content Types

PLOS Medicine publishes a range of content focused on advancing medical knowledge with implications for clinical practice, public policy, or pathophysiological understanding. The journal's primary content type consists of original research articles reporting findings of outstanding medical importance, including clinical trials, epidemiological studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and qualitative investigations into biomedical, environmental, social, or political determinants of health. These articles must demonstrate substantial advances, such as novel mechanistic insights or evidence influencing patient care, and are structured with sections including an abstract (divided into Background, Methods and Findings, and Conclusions), Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and references, emphasizing reproducibility and data availability. Complementing research articles, PLOS Medicine features several non-research formats to provide context, commentary, and guidance:
  • Perspectives: Expert analyses discussing the clinical or implications of recent studies, typically up to 1,000 words with a maximum of 12 references and one optional display item; often commissioned but unsolicited submissions are considered, avoiding self-promotion of authors' own work.
  • Policy Forums: Articles by policymakers or experts addressing challenges and opportunities, limited to 2,000 words and up to 30 references, encouraged to include display items and cover background, evidence, proposals, and implementation barriers.
  • Guidelines and Guidance: Recommendations on conduct, reporting standards, or emerging methodologies, capped at 3,000 words with up to 30 references; requires detailing consensus processes, panel selection, and limitations, with longer versions potentially summarized and supplemented by full supporting information.
  • Editorials: Short pieces commissioned or written by the editorial team, published monthly to highlight topics of medical or policy interest.
  • Collection Overviews: Contextual essays for pre-planned themed collections, providing historical and scientific framing for included articles; typically commissioned and concise with appropriate referencing.
The journal also issues post-publication notices, such as , expressions of concern, and retractions, to address errors or issues in previously published content. All content undergoes rigorous where applicable, prioritizing general interest and impact over niche topics.

Scope in Medical Research

PLOS Medicine encompasses a broad scope in , emphasizing original articles and analyses that address major challenges with potential to advance clinical practice, inform , or deepen pathophysiological understanding. The journal prioritizes studies on biomedical, environmental, social, and political determinants of health, particularly those tackling conditions responsible for substantial burdens, such as infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and inequities in health outcomes. This focus extends to translational medicine, research integrity, and ethical considerations in health research, ensuring publications contribute meaningfully to evidence-based decision-making for clinicians, policymakers, and researchers. Original research submissions must demonstrate outstanding medical importance, featuring substantial advances in knowledge that inspire further investigation, enhance patient care, or improve strategies. Manuscripts are evaluated for their ability to pose and resolve critical questions with rigorous , often incorporating human or justified translational models for issues untestable in humans. The journal favors policy-relevant work across diverse settings, including disparities and social determinants, while discouraging non-prospectively registered clinical trials absent compelling justifications. Approximately 10% of initial submissions advance to full , reflecting stringent criteria for novelty, impact, and generalizability beyond narrow specialties. In addition to primary research like clinical trials and systematic reviews, the scope includes shorter reports of novel findings and interdisciplinary perspectives that bridge basic science with real-world applications, such as implementation science or health systems research. Publications must employ accessible language, eschewing excessive to reach non-specialist audiences, thereby amplifying influence on clinical agendas and formulation. This comprehensive approach underscores Medicine's commitment to high-impact, open-access dissemination of evidence that counters fragmented or siloed medical inquiry.

Editorial Policies and Processes

Peer Review Mechanism

PLOS Medicine employs a single-anonymized process by default, in which reviewers' identities are concealed from authors while authors' names are visible to reviewers. Reviewers may opt to sign their reviews, making their names visible to authors and potentially published alongside the article if the authors choose to release the peer review history. This approach balances anonymity with opportunities for transparency, allowing reviewers to claim credit for their contributions. Submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment by a staff editor and an academic editor, who evaluate suitability for the journal's scope, including originality, methodological soundness, and potential impact on clinical practice or . Manuscripts deemed promising proceed to full , typically involving 2 to 3 external experts selected for their expertise in the relevant field; statistical expertise is sought when applicable. Reviewers are expected to assess validity (e.g., of methods, adherence to reporting guidelines like CONSORT or STROBE), significance (e.g., implications for patient care or ), and overall quality, providing constructive feedback within approximately 8 to 10 days. Academic editors synthesize reviewer comments to recommend decisions: reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept. Major revisions often return to the original reviewers or new ones for re-evaluation, ensuring rigorous scrutiny. Confidentiality is maintained throughout, with reviewers prohibited from sharing manuscripts without editorial permission. Authors may opt to publish the peer review history—including decision letters and anonymized reviews—upon acceptance, promoting accountability; as of 2024, PLOS journals have published over 30,000 such histories across their portfolio. Appeals are permitted only for substantive factual errors or undisclosed conflicts of interest. This mechanism emphasizes scientific merit over novelty alone, aligning with PLOS Medicine's mission to advance evidence-based medicine.

Ethical Guidelines and Conflicts of Interest

PLOS Medicine adheres to the (COPE) and Best Practice Guidelines for all publication matters, including authorship, dual submission, , and research integrity. Authors are required to comply with these standards, and the journal investigates allegations of ethical breaches, such as or failure to obtain approvals, potentially leading to corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions as per COPE procedures. Conflicts of interest (COI) disclosures are mandatory for authors, reviewers, and editors to ensure transparency and mitigate potential biases in the publication process. Authors must declare any financial, personal, or professional relationships that could influence—or be perceived to influence—their work, including funding sources, employment affiliations, or intellectual property interests; these are submitted via the manuscript system and published with the article, or a statement of "no competing interests" is included if none exist. PLOS Medicine editors evaluate disclosed COI and may reject manuscripts if they determine that undeclared or significant interests have compromised the research's validity or objectivity, as outlined in early policy statements emphasizing rigorous scrutiny over mere disclosure. For peer reviewers, a competing interest encompasses any factor—such as recent co-authorship (within five years), shared institutional affiliations, personal rivalries, or financial stakes—that could reasonably impair impartial assessment; reviewers must disclose these upon invitation and recuse themselves if the conflict is deemed substantial by the editor, who may still permit review with full transparency in exceptional cases. Editors similarly declare COI and abstain from handling submissions involving close collaborators or funding conflicts, adhering to PLOS-wide policies that prioritize unbiased . Beyond COI, ethical guidelines mandate (IRB) or equivalent approval for all human and animal research, with details named in the methods section; human studies require (written preferred, with justification for oral), adherence to of Helsinki, and de-identification of participant data unless explicit consent for publication is obtained. Animal research follows national or international welfare standards, including the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting, with specifics on non-human primate studies scrutinized for ethical compliance. Authorship is restricted to contributors meeting criteria (e.g., conceptualization plus drafting), prohibiting ghost or guest authorship, while plagiarism is detected via Crossref Similarity Check and handled per COPE protocols. These policies, informed by the journal's Advisory Group on Publication Ethics established around 2005, aim to uphold research integrity without compromising open-access dissemination.

Data and Reproducibility Standards

PLOS Medicine requires authors to include a Data Availability Statement in their submissions, ensuring that all data necessary to replicate the study's findings are made publicly available without restriction at the time of publication. This policy, effective across journals since March 3, 2014, mandates deposition of the minimal —such as raw data underlying means, graphs, and sample images—in public repositories like or domain-specific archives, preferably with DOIs or accession numbers. Alternatively, data under 20 MB may be included in Supporting Information files hosted on figshare. Exceptions are permitted only for legal or ethical restrictions, such as protecting human participant confidentiality, in which case authors must provide a contact for access or a clear explanation of limitations; designating the sole author as the contact point or withholding data for proprietary reasons without public validation options is unacceptable. These requirements directly support by enabling independent validation, reanalysis, and replication of results, addressing common barriers in where incomplete hinders verification. For third-party , authors must share analysis-specific subsets or provide access instructions, further promoting transparency. PLOS Medicine editors and reviewers assess compliance, with potential retraction for unreasonable restrictions post-publication. In addition to data, the journal mandates of physical materials (e.g., plasmids, cell lines, antibodies) essential to the research, available without undue restriction upon publication, with encouraged deposition in repositories like Addgene and use of Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) for . Software and author-generated code central to analyses must be , deposited in public archives with DOIs, accompanied by documentation, test datasets, and licenses permitting reuse, ensuring on standard platforms like . Details on access are integrated into the Data Availability Statement, and violations of these commitments may lead to retraction. To facilitate methodological , PLOS Medicine expects manuscripts to describe statistical methods and other procedures in sufficient detail for exact replication by others, including software versions, parameters, and assumptions used. This aligns with broader emphasis on transparent reporting to underpin credible, verifiable findings in medical studies.

Publishing Model

Open Access Principles

PLOS Medicine operates under a full publishing model, making all peer-reviewed articles immediately and permanently available online to readers worldwide without subscription fees or access barriers. This ensures that high-impact is freely accessible to scientists, clinicians, policymakers, and the public, thereby accelerating knowledge dissemination and application in addressing challenges. Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which grants users permission to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts, as well as to create derivative works for any purpose, including commercial uses, provided proper attribution is given to the original authors and source. Authors retain copyright ownership but grant a perpetual, worldwide license to publish and distribute the work openly, while third-party materials incorporated into articles must be compatible with CC BY or obtain explicit permissions. This licensing framework promotes maximal reuse and impact of research outputs while upholding ethical standards for attribution and rights clearance. These principles trace back to the Public Library of Science's founding 2001 open letter, signed by over 34,000 scientists, which demanded free and unrestricted online access to the peer-reviewed literature in and the sciences to foster scientific progress and public benefit. The initiative emphasized that the archival record of research belongs to the public rather than for-profit publishers and called for support of journals enabling free distribution through public archives like within six months of publication. PLOS Medicine upholds this commitment by rejecting restrictive licenses such as CC BY-NC or CC BY-ND, prioritizing transparency and broad utility over proprietary controls.

Article Processing Charges and Funding

PLOS Medicine funds its open access operations primarily through article processing charges (APCs), which authors pay upon acceptance to offset expenses including coordination, editorial management, production, digital hosting, and long-term archiving. The current APC for Medicine stands at $6,460 USD for manuscripts from non-participating institutions. This author-pays model, pioneered by since its founding, ensures immediate and unrestricted access to published content without subscription barriers, aligning with the organization's nonprofit mission to democratize scientific knowledge. To address equity concerns, PLOS Medicine implements a tiered waiver policy integrated with the Research4Life program, providing full APC waivers for corresponding authors affiliated with institutions in Group A low-income countries and free publication for those in Group B lower-middle-income countries specifically for this journal. Authors ineligible for these waivers but facing financial hardship can apply for partial support through the PLOS Publication Fee Assistance (PFA) program, which evaluates need based on funding availability and is requested during submission; approval rates and coverage levels vary by demonstrated circumstances. Institutional read-and-publish agreements further mitigate APC burdens for affiliated researchers, enabling unlimited APC-free publishing in PLOS Medicine and other journals for corresponding authors from participating organizations, such as universities covering costs via prepaid memberships under the Community Action Publishing framework. These partnerships, which have expanded since 2021, redistribute financial responsibility from individual authors to institutions committed to , with examples including agreements at (effective 2023) and (effective 2021) that eliminate fees for eligible submissions. Beyond APCs, PLOS sustains PLOS Medicine through diversified nonprofit funding, including philanthropic grants like the $3.3 million award from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in December 2024 to facilitate a transition toward APC-alternative models, such as collective funding and reduced reliance on per-article fees. This supports ongoing innovations in equitable publishing while maintaining rigorous standards, though critics have noted past APC increases—such as the 2021 proposal to raise PLOS Medicine's fee toward $6,300—as potential barriers for unfunded researchers despite waiver provisions.

Innovations and Sustainability Efforts

PLOS Medicine has advanced publishing in the medical field by providing immediate, unrestricted online availability of all content since its inception in , enabling global distribution without subscription barriers. The journal emphasizes policy-relevant research with implications for patient care and , incorporating formats like Policy Forum and to highlight actionable insights and real-world applications. Recent priorities include expanding coverage to underrepresented topics such as , , and climate-health intersections, alongside promoting sharing and practices to accelerate knowledge dissemination in health sciences. As part of broader initiatives, PLOS Medicine contributes to innovations in through the development of a "knowledge stack" that integrates non-article outputs like and , enhancing their visibility, discoverability, and reusability via repositories and indexing services. This 18-month project, supported by the and , aims to create an equitable publishing ecosystem beyond traditional articles. To sustain its model, PLOS Medicine relies on PLOS-wide efforts to diversify revenue and reduce dependence on article processing charges (), including alternative models like flat fees and global equity pricing introduced since , which have secured partnerships with 181 institutions across 26 countries by 2022. These include large consortia agreements such as Bibsam in , CSAL in , and IReL in Ireland, eliminating APC burdens for affiliated authors and promoting financial inclusivity. PLOS's signatory status to the UN Publisher’s Compact underscores commitments to equity, with initiatives removing financial barriers, fostering diversity in roles, and guiding via an internal SDG Steering Committee. For PLOS Medicine specifically, involves upholding transparent ethical standards while prioritizing equitable global collaborations to counter practices like parachute science.

Indexing, Metrics, and Influence

Abstracting and Indexing Services

PLOS Medicine is indexed in a range of major abstracting and indexing services, which facilitate discoverability, citation tracking, and integration into scholarly workflows. These services include and , maintained by the National Library of Medicine, providing comprehensive coverage of biomedical literature; , Elsevier's abstract and citation database; and , Clarivate's platform for multidisciplinary indexing and analytics. The journal's inclusion in these databases, which began upon its launch in September 2004, supports its role in disseminating high-impact globally. As an open-access publication, PLOS Medicine is also listed in the (DOAJ), Crossref for DOI resolution and metadata, Dimensions for research analytics, and for broad web-based indexing. This multi-service coverage ensures articles are retrievable across academic, clinical, and policy contexts, with PubMed's selective inclusion reflecting the journal's adherence to rigorous criteria for biomedical relevance and quality. Indexing in and further enables bibliometric assessments, such as journal impact factors, calculated annually based on citation data from citable articles published in the prior two years.
ServiceProviderKey Features for PLOS Medicine Articles
PubMed / PubMed CentralNational Library of MedicineBiomedical abstracting; full-text archiving; essential for clinical and research searches.
ScopusElsevierCitation analysis; covers peer-reviewed literature across sciences.
Web of ScienceClarivateImpact factor calculation; multidisciplinary indexing with historical depth.
DOAJIndependent consortiumOpen-access verification; promotes discoverability of fee-free content.
CrossrefCrossrefDOI metadata; cross-publisher linking and reference resolution.
The publisher actively submits titles to additional services for , though coverage may vary by article type and recency, with ongoing updates to metadata ensuring timely inclusion. This indexing portfolio underscores PLOS Medicine's integration into established scholarly infrastructure, despite its open-access model, which prioritizes immediate public availability over subscription barriers.

Citation Impact and Altmetrics

PLOS Medicine maintains a Journal Impact Factor of 9.9 according to the 2023 released by in 2024, with a 5-year of 11, placing it in the 96.1st percentile among journals in general and . This metric reflects the average number of citations received by articles published in the journal over a two-year period, though journals, including PLOS Medicine, prioritize article-level metrics over journal-level indicators like due to concerns over their misuse in evaluating individual research quality. Additional citation-based measures include a (SJR) of 4.279 for 2024, indicating strong influence relative to other medical journals, and an of 289, signifying that 289 articles have each received at least 289 citations. The journal's citation performance is supported by its indexing in major databases such as and , facilitating broad discoverability and subsequent citations, particularly for studies on burdens and clinical interventions. Empirical analyses of citation patterns in journals highlight that while journal-level metrics like correlate with overall visibility, article-specific factors such as topic timeliness and methodological rigor drive individual citation accrual more directly. Regarding altmetrics, PLOS Medicine integrates Attention Scores for published articles, which aggregate data on online mentions across platforms including (e.g., X/Twitter), news outlets, policy documents, and blogs, weighted by source influence. This provides a complementary view to traditional citations by capturing rapid, non-academic dissemination, often relevant for topics with immediate policy implications. Studies examining journals, including Medicine, report a moderate positive between scores and eventual citation counts (Pearson's r ≈ 0.3–0.5), suggesting predict but do not fully substitute for scholarly impact, with higher attention scores linked to broader accessibility via . Medicine articles frequently garner elevated altmetric attention compared to lower-impact medical journals, attributed to their emphasis on clinically actionable research, though scores vary widely by article topic and do not always align with long-term citation trajectories.

Broader Scientific and Policy Influence

PLOS Medicine has shaped policy by publishing evidence syntheses and commentaries that directly inform decision-making on pressing global challenges. A 2019 systematic review in the journal analyzed government interventions to curb overuse, such as regulatory bans on over-the-counter sales and restrictions on last-resort antibiotics, providing empirical support for policies adopted in regions like and to combat resistance. Similarly, a 2018 analysis highlighted disproportionate health risks from for women, including exacerbated and , urging gender-sensitive adaptation strategies that have echoed in frameworks from organizations like the . The journal's model amplifies its policy reach by enabling unrestricted access to research for non-academic stakeholders, including policymakers in low-income countries, thereby facilitating evidence-based responses to epidemics and inequities. For example, its series on global practice advocated for task-shifting interventions and integration into , influencing scaling efforts in national programs across and , as evidenced by subsequent uptake in WHO action plans. Beyond specific topics, PLOS Medicine advances evidence-informed policymaking through methodological guidance, such as 2012 articles offering tools like GRADE-adapted frameworks to evaluate confidence in systems research, which aid in prioritizing interventions amid resource constraints. Its recent editorial priorities emphasize "actionable " focused on equity and impact, positioning the journal to and refine policies on issues like economic determinants of health disparities . This approach has fostered interdisciplinary discourse, including calls to embed social sciences in and research, potentially steering funding toward holistic strategies.

Notable Articles

Research Reproducibility and Methodological Critiques

John P. A. Ioannidis's 2005 article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," published in PLOS Medicine, mathematically demonstrated that the majority of research claims in fields with small effect sizes, low statistical power, flexible study designs, and high financial or career incentives for positive results are likely false positives. The paper modeled the positive predictive value (PPV) of research findings as a function of pre-study , power, and bias, showing that PPV decreases sharply when power is below 0.8 or bias exceeds small levels, concluding that "claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias." Ioannidis applied this to examples like genetic associations, where replication rates were under 10% despite initial claims, attributing failures to these systemic factors rather than fraud. This work catalyzed the reproducibility crisis discourse in , with over 10,000 citations by 2023, prompting reforms like preregistration and larger trials, though critics argued it overstated pessimism by underemphasizing field-specific variations in prior probabilities. In a follow-up in PLOS Medicine, "How to Make More Published Research True," Ioannidis expanded on solutions, estimating that 85% of biomedical research resources are wasted due to irreproducible findings from poor incentives, selective reporting, and underpowered studies. He advocated for higher standards, including larger collaborations, reduced p-hacking, and funding shifts toward replication, warning that without systemic changes like claim-specific pre-study odds adjustments, false discoveries would persist even in meta-analyses. These articles highlighted methodological flaws such as multiple testing without correction and favoring novelty over rigor, influencing guidelines from bodies like the NIH to prioritize in grants. Empirical validations, including low replication rates in cancer biology (under 50% in large-scale efforts), supported Ioannidis's predictions, underscoring causal links between low power (often 20-30% in small studies) and non-replication.

Public Health Interventions

PLOS Medicine has featured research evaluating the and of interventions, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. A 2011 framework proposed strategies for expanding programs, emphasizing vertical scale-up through improved supply chains and across sectors to achieve population-level coverage. This model has informed planning for interventions like campaigns and nutritional programs by addressing barriers such as and local . Studies in the journal have quantified mortality reductions from targeted interventions. For instance, a 2010 analysis estimated that increasing coverage of community-based interventions—such as , insecticide-treated nets, and —by 20% could avert 486,000 under-5 deaths annually in 68 priority countries, at a cost of US$5 billion. Similarly, a 2024 meta-analysis of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions reported a 17% reduction in all-cause childhood mortality odds, based on data from 55 studies involving over 83,000 deaths, highlighting the causal role of improved and in preventing diarrheal and other infections. Community-level nursing and social care interventions have also been examined for their effects on vulnerable populations. A 2012 trial in demonstrated that nurse-led home visits reduced all-cause mortality by 39% over two years among adults aged 65 and older with comorbidities, attributing benefits to early detection and management of health risks rather than mere monitoring. In a 2021 study, emergency department-based assessments for older adults shortened hospital stays by 1.5 hours and lowered admission risks by 15%, with cost savings from avoided outweighing intervention expenses. Network-based approaches show promise for behavioral change. A 2019 systematic review and found social network interventions improved sexual health outcomes, with short-term effect sizes indicating reduced sexually transmitted infections and increased condom use, sustained beyond six months in some trials, though evidence for physical activity and substance use remained limited due to fewer studies. These findings underscore the journal's role in synthesizing evidence for interventions leveraging social ties to amplify individual compliance, while cautioning on generalizability across contexts.

Pharmaceutical and Industry Scrutiny

PLOS Medicine has featured notable articles examining the pharmaceutical industry's influence on medical research, journals, and clinical practice, often highlighting potential biases and conflicts of interest. A 2005 editorial asserted that medical journals function as an extension of pharmaceutical marketing, processing industry-generated data into seemingly independent publications to promote products, with the journal's editors citing examples of selective reporting and ghostwriting. This perspective drew on prior critiques, including statements from editors like Richard Horton of The Lancet, who described journals as "information laundering operations" for industry. In , the journal articulated its own stance against industry entanglement by prohibiting advertisements for drugs and devices, rejecting exclusive reprint deals with pharmaceutical firms, and avoiding financial benefits from such arrangements, aiming to preserve amid widespread concerns over commercial pressures. This policy reflected broader scrutiny, as PLOS Medicine noted that other journals like were disclosing drug company revenues while phasing out ads. Subsequent debates in 2009 questioned the viability of healthy alliances between physicians and drug companies, with contributors arguing that financial ties—such as payments for speaking or consulting—undermine clinical objectivity, though some defended regulated interactions as beneficial for innovation. A 2010 series extended this to obligations, critiquing companies for prioritizing profits over access to in low-income countries, with editors calling for greater in pricing and distribution practices. Empirical analyses in the journal further probed industry impacts, including a 2010 study finding that journals publishing more industry-funded randomized controlled trials experienced higher impact factors, potentially incentivizing acceptance of such papers despite risks of bias. Another 2012 investigation revealed inadequate conflict-of-interest disclosures by authors promoting off-label drug uses, with only partial reporting of industry payments in related publications. These works underscore Medicine's emphasis on transparency, though critics of open-access models have questioned whether such scrutiny adequately counters systemic funding dependencies in academia.

Data Transparency and Access Cases

PLOS Medicine has emphasized data transparency through its mandatory data availability policy, implemented in March 2014, which requires authors to make underlying publicly accessible without restriction at publication to enable replication and verification of findings. This policy applies to all , with exceptions only for ethical, legal, or privacy constraints, and includes a required data availability statement detailing access methods. An early empirical assessment of practices among PLOS Medicine authors, published in 2008, contacted ten corresponding authors from recent articles and found that while nine responded positively to requests, only two provided —one immediately and one after delay—highlighting initial compliance challenges despite the journal's open-access . This study underscored barriers such as institutional restrictions and resource demands, prompting subsequent policy strengthening across PLOS journals to enforce proactive sharing. In , PLOS Medicine editors published guidelines advancing transparency in observational studies, recommending registration of protocols, full deposition in repositories, and detailed analytic code sharing to mitigate selective reporting and enhance . A follow-up reflection in noted improved adherence, with many authors providing access upon request, though persistent issues included incomplete code sharing and delays in repository uploads. A 2018 reanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PLOS Medicine and demonstrated the value of enforced data access: among 37 PLOS Medicine RCTs from 2012 onward with available data (12 cases), independent reanalyses largely confirmed original conclusions but identified minor discrepancies in effect estimates and significance in three instances, illustrating how transparency facilitates detection without overturning core results. Such cases reinforce the policy's role in fostering verifiable science, though they also reveal practical hurdles like data formatting incompatibilities. During emergencies, PLOS Medicine has advocated for rapid norms, as in a 2016 editorial calling for embargo-free access to outbreak data to accelerate responses, citing the 2014 crisis where delayed sharing hampered modeling efforts. This aligns with broader journal efforts, including endorsements of initiatives like the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER), which standardize data handling in meta-analyses of health metrics.

Controversies and Criticisms

Editorial Independence and Bias Allegations

PLOS Medicine operates as part of the non-profit Public Library of Science (), which funds its operations primarily through article processing charges (APCs) paid by authors upon acceptance, rather than subscription fees or reprint sales that could incentivize favorable coverage of industry-funded . This model is designed to safeguard by decoupling revenue from publication outcomes or advertiser influence, as highlighted in discussions within the journal itself emphasizing that editors' fixed salaries are not linked to acceptance rates or impact metrics. The journal employs a team of professional editors who oversee rigorous , with initial screening for significance and methodological soundness before external review. Despite these structural protections, analyses of conflicts of interest (COIs) have raised concerns applicable to PLOS Medicine. A 2015 study examining five leading medical journals, including PLOS Medicine, found that 40% of its editors (4 out of 10) reported potential COIs, such as financial ties to pharmaceutical companies or research funding that could indirectly influence . Such disclosures, while mandated, do not eliminate the risk of subconscious bias in manuscript selection or review, particularly in fields like where industry funding is prevalent. However, the study did not attribute specific instances of compromised independence to PLOS Medicine, and the journal requires declaration of non-financial interests as well to mitigate broader influences. Public allegations of ideological or political bias in PLOS Medicine's editorial processes remain scarce and unsubstantiated in peer-reviewed or investigative literature. Unlike its sister journal , which faced scrutiny for manipulated peer reviews and anomalous editor activity leading to over 100 retractions in , PLOS Medicine has not been implicated in similar systemic editorial scandals. Critics of open-access models, including , have occasionally pointed to potential vulnerabilities from reliance on APCs, which may favor well-funded institutions and introduce toward topics aligned with grant priorities in academia—often emphasizing or critiques of commercial influences—but these are generalized concerns rather than targeted accusations against the journal. Independent assessments, such as those from evaluators, classify PLOS publications as credible and peer-reviewed without predatory tendencies or evident partisan skew. In response to broader threats to editorial autonomy in the digital era, PLOS Medicine editors have advocated for transparency in and competing interests to counter risks like financial pressures or external groups, underscoring the journal's commitment to evidence-based over external agendas. No verified cases exist of advertiser or funder interference overriding editorial judgments, distinguishing PLOS Medicine from for-profit journals historically criticized for reprint-driven biases. Nonetheless, the journal's focus on high-impact, policy-relevant topics—such as research reproducibility and industry scrutiny—has prompted informal debates in scientific forums about whether its lens prioritizes certain narratives, though of systematic distortion is lacking.

Open Access Quality and Predatory Risks

PLOS Medicine publishes all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, ensuring immediate open access upon publication without embargoes. The journal funds its operations through article processing charges (APCs) of $6,460 per accepted manuscript, with fee waivers or discounts available for authors from low- and middle-income countries or those facing financial hardship. This model supports no-fee reader access while covering editorial, peer review, and production costs, distinguishing it from subscription-based journals. To uphold quality, PLOS Medicine employs a rigorous, multi-stage process overseen by professional editors, including initial screening for novelty, validity, and relevance, followed by external for most submissions. Approximately 10% of initial submissions advance to publication, reflecting high selectivity comparable to top-tier medical journals. Peer reviewers, drawn from the scientific community, assess methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and data transparency, with options for authors to publish review histories post-acceptance to enhance . These practices contribute to a 2024 of 9.9, indicating strong citation influence and perceived reliability among researchers. While the landscape includes predatory journals that prioritize revenue over substantive —often accepting low-quality work with minimal scrutiny—PLOS Medicine mitigates such risks through transparent policies, DOAJ inclusion, and adherence to (COPE) standards. No verified instances of predatory practices have been documented for PLOS Medicine, unlike some OA outlets criticized for lax oversight; instead, PLOS has actively published analyses warning against predatory publishing's erosion of scientific trust. Critics of -based OA models argue that high fees may disadvantage underfunded researchers, potentially skewing representation, though PLOS's waiver programs address this to some extent. Empirical evidence from bibliometric analyses positions PLOS Medicine as a credible OA venue, with rejection rates and citation metrics underscoring its resistance to quality dilution.

Specific Scandals and Disputes

In June , PLOS Medicine retracted an essay titled "Early effects of foreign aid on ," published on May 8, , by authors Rajaie Batniji and Eran Bendavid. The retraction stemmed from errors in selection and reporting that invalidated the paper's conclusions critiquing a prior Lancet analysis on aid's impact on health spending in low-income countries. The authors initiated the retraction voluntarily upon identifying the issues, highlighting challenges in modeling complex aid data but raising questions about the rigor of critiques targeting established studies. A 2005 randomized controlled trial published in PLOS Medicine on male circumcision's efficacy in reducing HIV acquisition in South Africa sparked ethical disputes. Rejected by over concerns about trial design, informed consent processes, and potential risks to participants in a high-prevalence setting, the paper reported a 60% reduction in HIV incidence among circumcised men. Opponents contended the study inadequately addressed long-term behavioral risks and equity in resource-limited contexts, while defenders emphasized its alignment with public health evidence and subsequent WHO endorsements. This editorial decision underscored tensions between innovation in trial ethics and precautionary standards in global health research. PLOS Medicine has issued few retractions overall, with no documented cases of widespread or manipulated akin to those in sister PLOS journals like . Instances of concern have typically involved methodological flaws rather than intentional misconduct, reflecting the journal's emphasis on transparency but also exposing vulnerabilities in high-stakes policy-oriented analyses.

References

  1. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/journal-information
  2. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002970
  3. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/why-publish-with-plos-medicine
  4. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines
  5. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process
  6. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/
  7. https://wos-journal.info/journalid/15106
  8. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/publishing-information
  9. https://www.plos.org/files/PLOS-Progress-Update-2011.pdf
  10. https://plos.org/open-letter/
  11. https://phys.org/partners/public-library-of-science/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC523847/
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101231360
  14. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001749
  15. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0010031
  16. https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7473/996.1
  17. https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4148
  18. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0010022
  19. https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7475/1190.2
  20. https://rogue-scholar.org/records/z4fy1-7s578
  21. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
  22. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291
  23. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000167
  24. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009
  25. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001072
  26. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs-%2528%2523238SUPPb%2529%2520PLOS.pdf
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4211662/
  28. https://www.bioxbio.com/journal/PLOS-MED
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5330450/
  30. https://theplosblog.plos.org/2025/09/updates-to-plos-retrospective-health-database-editorial-policy/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12309982/
  32. https://plos.org/about/
  33. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004691
  34. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/other-article-types
  35. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/reviewer-guidelines
  36. https://scirev.org/journal/plos-medicine/
  37. https://theplosblog.plos.org/2024/01/four-years-of-published-peer-review-history/
  38. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/ethical-publishing-practice
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1069676/
  40. https://plos.org/resource/competing-interests-for-reviewers/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1808102/
  42. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability
  43. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/materials-and-software-sharing
  44. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting
  45. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines
  46. https://plos.org/about/why-open-access/
  47. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/licenses-and-copyright
  48. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
  49. https://plos.org/fees/
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC524542/
  51. https://mclibrary.duke.edu/news/new-open-access-publishing-agreement-plos
  52. https://web.library.yale.edu/news/2021/02/yale-library-eliminates-fees-yale-authors-publishing-plos-open
  53. https://theplosblog.plos.org/2024/12/plos-receives-3-3m-grant-to-support-open-access-publishing-business-model-transformation/
  54. https://www.science.org/content/article/new-plos-pricing-test-could-signal-end-scientists-paying-publish-free-papers
  55. https://plos.org/redefining-publishing/
  56. https://theplosblog.plos.org/2022/09/open-access-doesnt-need-apcs-our-progress-to-date/
  57. https://plos.org/our-commitment-to-sustainability/
  58. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=144840&tip=sid&clean=0
  59. https://doaj.org/toc/1549-1676
  60. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002542
  61. https://plos.org/metrics/
  62. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194962
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6544677/
  64. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002819
  65. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002603
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1468482/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3362639/
  68. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001187
  69. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003319
  70. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004649
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/
  72. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747
  73. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001049
  74. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000295
  75. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004215
  76. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001265
  77. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003711
  78. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002890
  79. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
  80. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030329
  81. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000075
  82. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000330
  83. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000344
  84. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000354
  85. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001280
  86. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000352
  87. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001949
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3934818/
  89. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007078
  90. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001711
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4624232/
  92. https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k400
  93. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001935
  94. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002056
  95. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000355
  96. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127362
  97. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050199
  98. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02446-5
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157718302724
  100. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/public-library-science-plos/
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3190552/
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2964337/
  103. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004542
  104. https://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/29/authors-retract-plos-medicine-foreign-health-aid-paper-that-had-criticized-earlier-lancet-study/
  105. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001573
  106. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
  107. https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/plos-medicine/
  108. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.