PLOS ONE Impact Factor 2024/2025: What the Number Actually Means for Authors

PLOS ONE's impact factor is 2.6 in 2024. That number comes up constantly when researchers are deciding where to submit: but PLOS ONE is the one journal where the impact factor is most likely to mislead you. Here's why, and what actually matters.

PLOS ONE Impact Factor: Year by Year

The CiteScore (Scopus 4-year window) is higher at ~5.9, which gives a better sense of how the journal's articles actually perform over time. The gap matters: PLOS ONE articles that get cited at all tend to accumulate citations over a longer period than the 2-year JCR window captures.

Why PLOS ONE's IF Is Uniquely Misleading

Most journals have a low IF because their articles don't get cited much. PLOS ONE has a low IF for entirely different structural reasons.

1. Volume is the issue, not citation performance

PLOS ONE publishes somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 articles per year: one of the highest volumes of any journal in the world. The IF formula divides total citations by total articles published. When the denominator is that large, even a journal where individual articles get cited frequently ends up with a low average.

A paper published in PLOS ONE that gets 50 citations in two years is a high-performing paper. But that same paper contributes only 50/15,000 to the IF. The formula systematically undervalues high-volume journals.

2. PLOS ONE publishes what other journals reject for the wrong reasons

PLOS ONE deliberately publishes null results, replications, and methodologically sound studies that high-impact journals would reject for "lack of novelty." These papers get cited less frequently than breakthrough findings, which pulls the average down. But this is a feature, not a bug: science needs these papers even if citation culture doesn't reward them equally.

3. PLOS ONE itself tells you to ignore it

This is the unique part: PLOS ONE's own editorial policy explicitly states that the journal doesn't use impact factor to evaluate submissions, and they actively discourage authors from using IF to compare journals. PLOS ONE was built in 2006 specifically as a rejection of the IF-driven publication model. Using IF to judge PLOS ONE is exactly what the journal was designed to push back against.

How PLOS ONE Compares to Similar Open-Access Journals

A few things stand out:

• PLOS ONE's APC ($1,895) is the lowest of any comparable general-science journal. Scientific Reports charges $2,490 for a journal with only a slightly higher IF.
• PLOS ONE is faster than Scientific Reports (40 days vs 120 days) and much faster than BMJ Open.
• The acceptance rate (31%) is lower than Scientific Reports (57%): meaning PLOS ONE is actually more selective than its IF suggests.
• eLife has no IF by choice, and nobody serious questions its prestige. IF is not the only signal of journal quality.

What "No Novelty Requirement" Actually Means

The most misunderstood thing about PLOS ONE: "no novelty requirement" doesn't mean "easy to get in."

It means the editors won't reject you because your findings aren't surprising enough. They will still reject you for:

• Methods problems: inadequate controls, small n, wrong statistical tests, missing validation
• Overclaimed conclusions: saying your data "demonstrates" something it only "suggests"
• Ethics non-compliance: missing IRB, inadequate IACUC, no data availability statement
• English quality: PLOS ONE doesn't copyedit accepted manuscripts, so unclear writing is a real rejection risk
• Data availability: they require public data sharing or documented reasons for exceptions

The reviewers assigned to your paper are experts in your field. They will catch methods problems. The bar is lower for impact, but the bar for rigor is real.

Should You Submit to PLOS ONE?

The right question isn't "is the IF high enough." It's whether PLOS ONE is the right fit for your specific paper.

Submit to PLOS ONE if:

• Your work is methodologically sound but not a landmark finding
• You have null or negative results worth documenting
• You're publishing a replication, methods comparison, or database paper
• Open access is required by your funder and cost matters ($1,895 is competitive)
• You need faster turnaround than alternatives in your tier
• Your paper was rejected from a higher-tier journal for "lack of novelty" with no methods concerns

Consider alternatives if:

• Your work is a genuine breakthrough: try Nature, Science, or field-specific high-tier journals first
• Your field values specific journal brands: some hiring committees weight PLOS ONE less than specialist journals in the same IF range
• You're in a country where IF tiers affect job applications: a 2.6 IF can be a liability in IF-driven academic systems
• Your data isn't shareable: PLOS ONE's data availability requirements are strict

The IF That Matters More Than 2.6

If you're trying to understand PLOS ONE's actual reach, citation half-life is more informative than JCR IF. PLOS ONE articles accumulate citations over 5-10 years in many fields, not just the 2-year window. The CiteScore of 5.9 (which uses a 4-year window) is a better proxy.

Also worth knowing: PLOS ONE articles are among the most-downloaded scientific papers online. Open access plus broad scope means your work reaches readers who wouldn't have access at subscription journals. That's a real benefit that doesn't show up in any impact factor calculation.

Practical Takeaways

• Current IF is 2.6 (2024 JCR). CiteScore 5.9. Use CiteScore if you want a more representative number.
• The low IF is structural: a result of high volume and editorial philosophy, not poor citation performance.
• PLOS ONE explicitly rejects the IF model and built its editorial process around scientific rigor instead.
• 31% acceptance rate means it's more selective than it looks. Methodology is the real filter.
• $1,895 APC is one of the most affordable options for a fully indexed, widely read journal.
• 40-day median review is fast for its tier.

For the complete PLOS ONE submission guide: what reviewers actually check, how to write a PLOS ONE methods section, data availability requirements, and APC waiver options: see the PLOS ONE journal page, the PLOS ONE submission process guide, and how long PLOS ONE review actually takes.

Sources and further reading

Impact factor data sourced from Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (released June 2025). Submission guidelines at the PLOS ONE author center.

See our full PLOS ONE journal guide for acceptance rates, review timelines, and what the soundness-only review model means for your paper. For manuscript strategy before you submit, see our avoid desk rejection service.

How to Think About PLOS ONE's IF for Your Career

The relevant question for most authors isn't whether PLOS ONE's IF of 2.6 is "good enough" in the abstract. It's whether a PLOS ONE publication serves your specific career needs.

For authors at research-intensive universities where hiring committees explicitly track IF scores, a PLOS ONE publication counts less than a publication in a field-specific journal with a 5-10 IF. For authors at teaching universities, liberal arts colleges, or research institutes that evaluate papers by their content and citation impact rather than raw IF, PLOS ONE is a fully legitimate publication venue.

The practical question is: who is reading your tenure or promotion dossier, and how do they evaluate journals? Get the answer to that question before you decide whether PLOS ONE is the right target for a given paper.

PLOS ONE's Role in Your Publication Portfolio

PLOS ONE works best for papers that need to be published quickly, that have solid methodology but incremental findings, or that are foundational supporting papers rather than flagship publications. Most active researchers have a mix of publication venues , some high-IF flagship papers and some methodological or supporting papers in venues like PLOS ONE.

Using PLOS ONE strategically , publishing sound supporting work there while reserving your best data for higher-IF targets , is a rational portfolio approach. The alternative (insisting on high-IF publication for every paper) leads to long delays and often holds up papers that would have broader impact if available sooner.

The Bottom Line

PLOS ONE's IF of 2.6 is not the point of submitting there. The point is rapid, open-access publication with a methodology-first bar. If your study is sound but the claims are incremental, PLOS ONE is the right call. If you're unsure whether your methodology passes the bar, a pre-submission diagnostic can tell you before you find out from a reviewer.

See also

• PLOS ONE acceptance rate
• eLife vs PLOS ONE
• Scientific Reports vs PLOS ONE
• Is PLOS ONE a good journal?