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

The "is PLOS ONE predatory?" question stems from several misunderstandings, each of which mistakes a deliberate editorial or business choice for a quality failure. The four that come up most often are the soundness-first acceptance model, the author-pays open-access model, the publishing volume, and the modest impact factor. None of them are predatory signals, and each has a straightforward explanation:

Evidence basis and source boundary: this page separates the legitimacy question from the journal-fit question. The legitimacy layer uses PLOS publisher identity, PubMed/Scopus/Web of Science/DOAJ indexing, COPE-style publication-ethics signals, transparent APCs, and real JCR metrics. The Manusights interpretation layer explains why authors still ask the predatory question and where PLOS ONE can be legitimate but strategically wrong for a manuscript.

In our pre-submission review work with PLOS ONE-bound manuscripts, the named failure pattern is not "the journal is fake." It is authors treating a soundness-first journal as if reviewers will ignore weak methods, incomplete data availability, or overclaimed conclusions. That mistake can produce rejection at a legitimate journal, but it is not evidence that the journal is predatory.

1. The soundness-first acceptance model

Researchers see a more accessible acceptance model than selective journals, but that does not mean automatic acceptance. PLOS reports 31% acceptance in its current annual metrics set, and manuscripts can still be returned for scope, methods, reporting, or ethics issues. Papers that continue 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.

2. The open-access model and APC

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 ($7,350), Cell Reports ($5,790), and eLife ($3,000). The business model doesn't determine whether a journal is predatory.

3. The volume

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.

4. The citation-number misunderstanding

PLOS ONE's current JIF is 2.8 in the 2026 Journal Citation Reports release, based on 2025 data. That is modest compared with selective journals, but it reflects volume, field mix, and a deliberate editorial decision not to screen for novelty. A modest JIF does not mean fake peer review. It means the citation landscape and editorial model are different.

If you were looking for the pathogen-specialist PLOS title instead, use the dedicated PLOS Pathogens metric guide. This page owns the PLOS ONE legitimacy question.