Is PLOS ONE Predatory? No. Here's What It Actually Is.

Researchers see ~31% at PLOS ONE desk-rejects 40-45% of submissions for scope, methods, or ethics issues. The remaining papers undergo genuine peer review with soundness-only criteria.

"Soundness-only" means reviewers evaluate whether the methodology is correct and conclusions follow from the data. They do NOT evaluate novelty, significance, or importance. This is a deliberate editorial choice, not a quality failure.

PLOS ONE charges a $2,477 APC. Some researchers associate author-pays models with predatory publishing. But author-pays open access is the model used by Nature Communications ($5,390), Cell Reports ($5,200), and eLife ($3,000). The business model doesn't determine whether a journal is predatory.

PLOS ONE publishes 20,000+ papers per year. That volume makes individual papers less visible, which some researchers interpret as a quality signal. But volume is a business decision, not a quality indicator. Nature Communications publishes 10,000+ papers per year.

PLOS ONE's IF has declined from 4.4 (2012) to 2.6 (2024). This reflects competition from newer open-access venues (Scientific Reports, MDPI journals) and a deliberate editorial decision not to screen for novelty. The declining IF doesn't mean declining quality. It means the citation landscape changed.

Predatory journals have specific characteristics that PLOS ONE does not share:

Submit if:

• the science is technically sound with proper methodology
• the finding is useful to the community even without being novel
• you want fast, affordable open access ($2,477 is lower than most OA venues)
• negative results, replications, or descriptive work needs a rigorous home

Think twice if:

• a more selective journal would accept the paper (higher per-paper visibility)
• Scientific Reports (IF 3.9, Springer Nature brand) is a realistic alternative
• the paper has novelty and significance that deserve a higher-impact venue
• your field or institution undervalues PLOS ONE publications

A journal tier fit check can help assess whether a more selective journal is realistic before choosing PLOS ONE.

The predatory-journal label confuses two separate questions that should never be merged.

The first question is legitimacy: does the journal have real editorial oversight, real peer review, real indexing, and a real correction or retraction process? PLOS ONE clearly passes that test.

The second question is strategic value: is this the best journal for your paper, your field, and what you need professionally next? That answer is much more conditional. A legitimate journal can still be the wrong strategic target. PLOS ONE is weak when the paper needs stronger prestige signaling or a tighter specialist readership. It is strong when the science is solid, the authors want a real citable home, and the novelty filter is not the main thing creating value.

That distinction matters because authors make bad decisions when they ask "is this predatory?" instead of "what is this journal actually for?"