PLOS ONE Impact Factor

PLOS ONE's IF has been in slow decline since its peak of ~4.4 in 2013-2014. The 2021 bump to 3.7 was COVID-related (PLOS ONE published thousands of pandemic studies that were heavily cited). The return to 2.6 represents the journal's new baseline.

The decline reflects two structural factors: increasing competition from other megajournals (Scientific Reports, IEEE Access), and a deliberate editorial model that doesn't filter for "impact." PLOS ONE publishes everything that's technically sound, regardless of novelty. That's a feature, not a bug, but it produces a low average citation rate.

PLOS ONE's low IF is mathematically inevitable given its editorial model. Here's why:

1. Volume dilution. PLOS ONE publishes 16,000+ papers per year. Even if 10% of those become highly cited (100+ citations), the other 90% pull the average down. In a journal that publishes 200 papers per year, every paper contributes meaningfully to the IF. At 16,000 papers per year, most papers barely register.

2. No novelty filter. PLOS ONE doesn't ask "is this novel?" or "is this impactful?" It asks "is this technically sound?" That means confirmatory studies, null results, and incremental advances all get published. These are exactly the papers that receive fewer citations but are scientifically valid and useful.

3. Field diversity. PLOS ONE publishes across all sciences. Papers in high-citation fields (medicine, genetics) get cited more than papers in low-citation fields (ecology, paleontology, mathematics). The IF averages across all fields, producing a number that doesn't represent any single field well.

4. Self-selection. Researchers with their most impactful work send it to high-IF journals. PLOS ONE often receives papers after rejection from more selective venues. This isn't a criticism - it's how the publishing ecosystem works. But it means PLOS ONE's paper pool skews toward work that's solid but not flashy.

PLOS ONE's editorial philosophy is unique among major journals. The evaluation criteria are explicitly limited to:

• Is the study well designed?
• Are the methods appropriate?
• Are the results supported by the data?
• Are the conclusions justified?
• Is the study ethical (human subjects, animal welfare)?
• Are data available for verification?

What's NOT evaluated:

• Novelty ("we've seen this before")
• Impact ("who would care about this?")
• Significance ("is this important enough?")

This model was revolutionary when PLOS ONE launched in 2006. It challenged the assumption that journals should gatekeep for perceived importance. The result is a journal that publishes genuine scientific contributions that would be rejected elsewhere purely on "impact" grounds.

The practical consequence: About 30-35% of submitted manuscripts are accepted. The remaining 65-70% are rejected for methodological flaws, not because editors think the topic is boring. If your methods are rigorous, your data are clean, and your conclusions follow from the evidence, you have a real chance at PLOS ONE regardless of the topic.

PLOS ONE's massive volume creates logistical challenges for review.

Typical timeline:

• Editorial screening: 1-2 weeks
• Reviewer assignment: can take 2-3 weeks (finding willing reviewers for 16,000+ papers is hard)
• External review: 3-6 weeks (2 reviewers)
• First decision: 6-10 weeks total
• Revision: one to two rounds
• Total submission to acceptance: 4-8 months

The bottleneck is reviewer recruitment. PLOS ONE editors request reviews from a larger number of potential reviewers to fill each slot, because the journal's volume means individual reviewers are asked frequently and often decline. Plan for this. If review seems delayed, a polite status inquiry to the editor after 8 weeks is reasonable.

PLOS ONE charges $2,477 (recently reduced from $2,477). All articles publish under CC BY, fully open access.

At $2,477, PLOS ONE is one of the most affordable Q2 OA journals. Compare this to Scientific Reports ($2,850), BMJ Open ($1,839), or Nature Communications ($7,350).

Fee waivers are available on a case-by-case basis. PLOS evaluates waiver requests based on financial need, not country of origin. The editorial decision is independent of ability to pay. Request waivers at submission, not after acceptance.

Submit if:

• Your study is methodologically sound but may not pass the "novelty" filter at other journals
• You have a confirmatory study, a null result, or an incremental advance that deserves publication
• You want affordable, fast open access with CC BY licensing
• You value open data policies and transparent science
• You need a publication in a PubMed-indexed, Web of Science-listed journal
• Your paper was rejected elsewhere on "impact" grounds, not methodological concerns

Think twice if:

• Impact factor matters for your career stage (2.6 may not meet institutional thresholds)
• You're in a field where Scientific Reports (IF 3.8) would serve the same purpose with a slightly higher IF
• Your paper is strong enough for field-specific journals with higher selectivity and citation rates
• You're concerned about the perception of PLOS ONE as a "dump journal" (this perception exists, fairly or not, at some institutions)

Through our PLOS ONE submission readiness check, we've reviewed hundreds of manuscripts being considered for PLOS ONE and similar soundness-review journals. The patterns are instructive.

The most common misconception is that "soundness only" means "easy to get into." It doesn't. PLOS ONE editors are rigorous about methodology, statistical reporting, and data availability. We regularly flag manuscripts where the methods section is too thin to survive review, researchers assume that because PLOS ONE doesn't judge novelty, they can be less careful about documenting their process. The opposite is true: when significance isn't being evaluated, methods become the entire basis for the editorial decision.

The second pattern: researchers who submit to PLOS ONE after rejection from a more selective journal often don't revise at all. That's a mistake. If the previous journal's reviewers flagged statistical issues or missing controls, those same issues will surface at PLOS ONE. The novelty filter is removed, but the rigor filter stays.

One specific trigger we see: papers where the sample size calculation is missing or the statistical test doesn't match the study design. At selective journals, these papers get desk-rejected for scope before anyone examines the methods. At PLOS ONE, they go to review, and the reviewers catch exactly those problems.

Before submitting, a PLOS ONE methods audit catches the statistical design and data-availability gaps that cause rejection at a journal where methods are the only editorial criterion.

Whether a PLOS ONE paper helps your career depends entirely on context.

Where PLOS ONE works well:

• Building a publication record as a graduate student or postdoc
• Publishing secondary findings from larger projects
• Establishing a citable record for methods, datasets, or protocols
• Fields where impact factor is less emphasized (ecology, social science, education)
• Clinical departments that value publication count alongside quality

Where PLOS ONE may not be enough:

• Faculty job applications at R1 research universities in competitive biomedical fields
• Grant applications where reviewers weight journal prestige heavily
• Fields with strong field-specific journals that carry more weight (try PNAS, EMBO Journal, or field journals)

PLOS ONE at 2.6 is the most misunderstood IF in science. The h-index of 589 and 12 million citations tell you this is one of the most influential journals ever published. Individual papers here can be excellent and highly cited. The average is pulled down by volume and editorial philosophy, not by quality.

If your work is technically sound and you want it published, read, and citable in an indexed journal with genuine open access, PLOS ONE delivers. The APC is affordable, the review process is fair, and the journal's commitment to publishing science based on rigor rather than prestige is principled.

Know the trade-off: accessibility for your paper, but a 2.6 on your CV. For many researchers and many papers, that trade-off makes sense.

The JCI of 0.85 is the number researchers should focus on. It means the average PLOS ONE paper is cited 15% less than the global average when normalized across fields. That's not terrible for a soundness-only journal, but it does mean the IF of 2.6 overstates the journal's citation performance relative to competitors.

PLOS ONE's IF trajectory: 4.4 (2012) to 3.2 (2018) to 2.6 (2024). Here's what's actually happening:

1. Volume contraction. PLOS ONE publishes about half the papers it did at peak (2016). Clarivate's JIF calculation divides citations by citable items. Fewer papers means each paper's citation count matters more, but the total citation pool also shrinks.
2. Competition from newer mega-journals. Scientific Reports, Frontiers journals, and MDPI titles have pulled submissions and citations away from PLOS ONE. The pie got divided.
3. Normalization of the mega-journal model. When PLOS ONE launched in 2006, it was innovative. Now every publisher has a version. The novelty premium is gone.
4. JCR methodology changes. Clarivate's 2024 calculations changed how early-access articles are counted, affecting journals with long production pipelines.

Does it matter? For your career: maybe. Search committees at research-intensive universities notice the IF decline. For your science: no. PLOS ONE papers are still indexed, citable, and discoverable. The soundness-only model means technically rigorous work that can't clear a novelty bar elsewhere still finds a permanent, legitimate home.

Before submitting, a PLOS ONE tier check confirms whether this is the right venue or whether your paper could compete at a more selective journal.

If PLOS ONE is your backup after a higher-tier rejection, a soundness audit confirms whether the previous reviewers' methodological concerns are addressed before you resubmit.