PLOS ONE Impact Factor 2025: Current JIF and Journal Positioning
Targeting PLOS ONE?
See scope, acceptance rate, submission tips, and what editors actually want.
PLOS ONE has a Journal Impact Factor of 2.6 in JCR 2024. That's the figure referenced as "PLOS ONE impact factor 2025," since JCR 2024 data is released in mid-2025 and used through 2026.
Quick Numbers
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor (JCR 2024) | 2.6 |
5-Year Impact Factor | 3.1 |
Publisher | Public Library of Science |
Open access | Fully open access |
APC | ~$1,805 |
Acceptance rate | ~50-60% |
Review model | Technical soundness only |
What 2.6 Means in Context
PLOS ONE pioneered the megajournal model. It reviews for methodological soundness, not perceived significance or novelty. That's a feature, not a bug — it was designed to let the scientific community, rather than two reviewers, decide what's important.
Journal | IF | Review model |
|---|---|---|
15.7 | Significance + soundness | |
3.9 | Technical soundness only | |
PLOS ONE | 2.6 | Technical soundness only |
PeerJ | ~2.7 | Technical soundness only |
PLOS ONE's IF has declined from its peak of ~4.4 in 2013-2014, largely because of increased publication volume and the emergence of competitors like Scientific Reports.
IF Trend Over Time
- 2020: 3.2
- 2021: 3.7
- 2022: 3.7
- 2023: 2.9
- 2024: 2.6
The downward trend reflects both volume effects and the broader landscape of OA megajournals. PLOS ONE still publishes over 30,000 articles annually, making it one of the largest peer-reviewed journals in the world.
Is 2.6 Acceptable?
Context matters enormously:
2.6 works well if:
- Your field has specialist journals with IFs of 1-3 (many social sciences, ecology subfields, some engineering areas)
- You need guaranteed open access at a reasonable cost
- Speed and certainty of publication matter for your career timeline
- The work is technically sound but unlikely to get into selective journals
2.6 may be limiting if:
- Your field's standard journals start at IF 4-5+
- Promotion committees at your institution explicitly penalize low-IF publications
- A more selective journal would actually accept the work and it's worth the extra time
Why Researchers Still Choose PLOS ONE
Despite the lower IF, PLOS ONE has real advantages:
- Fast, transparent review. Average time to first decision is around 40 days
- No "significance" gatekeeping. Negative results, replications, and incremental work all have a home
- Lower APC than most Nature Portfolio journals
- Data sharing mandate. PLOS ONE's open data policy means your dataset gets shared, increasing downstream citations
- Massive readership. PLOS ONE articles get significant downloads even without high IFs
PLOS ONE vs Scientific Reports
PLOS ONE | Scientific Reports | |
|---|---|---|
IF | 2.6 | 3.9 |
APC | ~$1,805 | ~$2,190 |
Branding | Independent nonprofit | Nature Portfolio |
Review model | Soundness only | Soundness only |
Data policy | Strong open data mandate | Less stringent |
Both serve the same function. PLOS ONE is cheaper and has a stronger open-science ethos. Scientific Reports has a slightly higher IF and the Nature branding. Choose based on your priorities.
More Resources
Free scan in about 60 seconds.
Run a free readiness scan before you submit.
More Articles
Want the full picture on PLOS ONE?
Anthropic Privacy Partner - zero retention