eLife vs PLOS ONE: Which Should You Choose in 2026?

eLife and PLOS ONE both built their reputations by criticizing how traditional peer review works. But they criticized different things and built different journals as a result. They're not in the same category, and researchers who treat them as interchangeable open-access options are making a mistake that affects both their publication strategy and their career.

Here's what actually separates them.

The Numbers at a Glance

The impact factor comparison is tricky: eLife stopped promoting its IF in 2023, on the grounds that journal-level metrics are a poor way to evaluate individual papers. That's a deliberate institutional position, not an acknowledgment that the number is bad (it isn't).

eLife's Unusual Model: What Happened in 2022-2023

eLife's peer review model changed substantially in 2022-2023. The new model works like this:

1. You submit a paper
2. If the editors decide it's worth reviewing (roughly 35-40% of submissions pass this stage), it gets sent to peer reviewers
3. Reviews are made public as a "Reviewed Preprint" on bioRxiv, with an eLife editorial assessment
4. You then choose whether to revise and resubmit for full publication, publish the reviewed preprint as-is, or withdraw
5. If you revise and resubmit, the revised paper goes through another round and is published as a full eLife article

The key implication: eLife no longer rejects papers after peer review. Once the paper gets past the initial editorial gate, it will be published in some form - either as a reviewed preprint or a full revised article. The peer review is public and transparent from the start.

This model was controversial. Some researchers love it. Others find the public review uncomfortable, particularly early-career authors who don't want critical reviews visible on their preprint record. It's worth understanding before you submit.

PLOS ONE's Philosophy: Simpler Than It Looks

PLOS ONE's model is older and more straightforward. Editors and reviewers ask one question: is this technically sound? Is the methodology appropriate? Does the data support the conclusions?

PLOS ONE explicitly doesn't ask whether the findings are novel, whether the work is significant, or whether it belongs in a prestigious journal. Those questions are left to the scientific community to answer through citation and engagement after publication.

This is a genuinely different editorial philosophy. The argument for it's that journal editors aren't good at predicting which papers will matter, and that filtering by perceived novelty introduces systemic bias. The argument against it's that it produces a high-volume journal with variable quality where important work is harder to find.

Both arguments are correct.

Prestige and Community Perception: Not Even Close

eLife publishes around 2,000-3,000 papers per year. PLOS ONE publishes around 25,000. That volume difference shapes everything about how each journal is perceived.

eLife papers get read. They get cited. They get featured in journal clubs, lab meetings, and conference talks. eLife is explicitly designed to be a venue for high-quality biology - the kind of work that would compete at Nature Communications, Current Biology, or Cell Reports. An eLife paper on your CV is a genuine signal of scientific quality.

A PLOS ONE paper is a legitimate publication, well-indexed, and respected as technically sound. It doesn't carry the same prestige signal. In most fields, a first-author PLOS ONE paper doesn't compete with a first-author eLife paper in promotion, grant, or fellowship evaluation.

This doesn't mean PLOS ONE is a bad choice. But it means the two journals are not peers, and you should approach them with different expectations.

Field Specificity: Biology vs Everything

eLife covers biology and biomedicine. More specifically, it publishes in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, genetics, genomics, structural biology, and related biomedical fields. If your work is in chemistry, physics, environmental science, or social science, eLife doesn't publish it.

PLOS ONE covers all empirical sciences. Biology, physics, chemistry, computer science, environmental science, psychology, economics - all are in scope. The breadth is genuinely unusual.

For biologists, both journals are in play. For everyone else, eLife isn't an option.

The Peer Review Experience: Very Different

At PLOS ONE, peer review is conventional single-blind (reviewers know who you are; you don't know who they are). Reviews are private. The editorial decision is standard. Timeline is typically 3-5 months from submission to first decision.

At eLife, the process is explicitly transparent. Under the reviewed preprint model, if your paper gets reviewed, the reviews are made public on bioRxiv with an eLife editorial assessment. This happens regardless of your revision choices. Reviewers know their reviews will be public, which changes how they write them - generally making them more constructive and less adversarial.

For early-career researchers, the public review aspect requires careful consideration. A high-quality critical review from a strong eLife paper can actually be a positive career signal. But a dismissive or confusing public review on a preprint you later withdraw from isn't ideal.

Who Actually Publishes in eLife

eLife's real competition is Nature Communications, Cell Reports, iScience, and Current Biology - not PLOS ONE. Researchers submit to eLife when:

• The work is strong enough to compete at high-impact journals but the journal-specific fit isn't perfect at Cell or Nature family
• The authors want transparent peer review and are comfortable with public reviews
• The work is in biology and the novelty bar is high
• They've been rejected from higher-tier journals and eLife is the next-best natural fit

eLife is a selective journal that wants to publish important biology. It's not a safety net.

Who Publishes in PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE serves a different function entirely. It's appropriate when:

• The science is technically sound but the novelty or significance doesn't meet the bar for selective journals
• Authors need a fast, indexed, discoverable publication for work that belongs in the record
• Funder mandates require PLOS-level OA compliance
• The study is a replication, negative result, or methods paper that high-novelty journals won't touch

PLOS ONE occupies an important niche. Science needs a venue for technically sound but non-breakthrough work. Without megajournals, that work either gets published in barely-indexed specialty journals or doesn't get published at all. PLOS ONE solves that problem.

The Bottom Line

eLife and PLOS ONE are not competing for the same manuscripts. eLife is a selective, high-quality biology journal comparable to Nature Communications and Current Biology. PLOS ONE is a megajournal for technically sound work across all disciplines, with a low novelty bar and high acceptance rate.

If your work is strong biology with genuine novelty, eLife belongs on your submission list. If your work is technically sound but not novel enough for selective journals, PLOS ONE is appropriate. They're not a choice between two equals - they're different tiers with different purposes.

For biology researchers: if you're choosing between eLife and PLOS ONE on the same manuscript, the right answer is almost always to try eLife first. You can always submit to PLOS ONE after an eLife rejection. You can't move in the other direction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is eLife better than PLOS ONE?

For biology researchers, yes. eLife publishes selective, high-impact biology and is comparable in prestige to Nature Communications and Cell Reports. PLOS ONE is a megajournal with a low novelty bar that publishes work from all scientific disciplines. They serve different purposes and are not in the same tier.

Does eLife still do peer review?

Yes, but the model changed in 2022-2023. eLife now uses a "Reviewed Preprint" model where peer reviews are made public alongside the manuscript. Papers that pass initial editorial screening are published as reviewed preprints, with authors choosing whether to revise for full publication.

What is eLife's impact factor?

eLife's impact factor is approximately 6.4, though eLife has publicly stated it no longer promotes its impact factor as a metric. The journal's editorial position is that IF is a poor way to evaluate scientific work. The number remains available in citation databases.

Is PLOS ONE indexed in Web of Science and PubMed?

Yes. PLOS ONE is indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus. Indexing is not a concern for PLOS ONE publications.

Can I submit to eLife if my paper was rejected by Nature Communications?

Yes. eLife is a natural next step after rejection from Nature Communications, Cell Reports, or Current Biology, depending on the nature of the rejection. If the rejection was about novelty or fit rather than scientific quality, eLife is worth trying. If reviewers raised substantive methodological concerns, address those before resubmitting anywhere.

Best for

• Authors deciding between these two venues for an active manuscript this month
• Labs that need a practical trade-off across fit, timeline, cost, and editorial bar
• Early-career researchers who need a realistic first-choice and backup choice

Not best for

• Choosing a journal from impact factor alone without checking scope fit
• Submitting before methods, controls, and framing match recent accepted papers
• Treating this comparison as a guarantee of acceptance at either journal

Sources

• eLife journal information and editorial model - elifesciences.org
• PLOS ONE journal information - plos.org/plosone
• Clarivate Journal Citation Reports 2024 - Impact Factor data
• eLife announcement of reviewed preprint model, 2022 - elifesciences.org/inside-elife

See also

• eLife journal profile
• PLOS ONE journal profile
• eLife submission guide
• Is eLife a good journal?
• Scientific Reports vs PLOS ONE
• How peer review actually works