PLOS ONE Submission Process: Review Time, Acceptance Rate & What Reviewers Check

Decision cue: If you need a yes/no submission call today, compare your draft with 3 recent accepted papers from this journal and only submit when scope, methods depth, and claim strength line up.

Related: How to choose a journal • How to avoid desk rejection • Pre-submission checklist

PLOS ONE receives over 70,000 submissions a year. The journal accepts roughly ~40% of papers that make it to peer review: but only about 55-60% of submissions ever get there. The rest are desk rejected in the first 48-72 hours. Understanding how the process actually works tells you exactly where to focus your energy.

What makes PLOS ONE different from every other journal

Most journals evaluate papers on significance and novelty. Editors ask: is this important enough for our readers? Will it change the field? PLOS ONE doesn't ask those questions. The editorial criteria are technical: Is the science sound? Are the methods appropriate? Are the conclusions supported by the data?

That's not a lower bar: it's a different bar. A paper with modest scope but rigorous methodology belongs in PLOS ONE. A paper with an ambitious hypothesis but underpowered statistics doesn't. If you misread PLOS ONE as a fallback journal where "anything goes," you'll get desk rejected for scope mismatch and never understand why.

The journal publishes across all disciplines: biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, social sciences, computational fields. It's intentionally discipline-agnostic. That means a rejection almost never comes down to field fit. It comes down to methodology and rigor.

The desk review stage: what editors actually check

When you submit, a PLOS ONE academic editor: typically a researcher in your field: does an initial desk review. This is not a quick skim. They look at specific things:

Methods and reproducibility. PLOS ONE has strict reporting requirements. Clinical trials need CONSORT compliance. Animal studies need ARRIVE compliance. Observational studies need STROBE. If your study type has a reporting checklist, you need to follow it. Missing compliance is one of the most common desk rejection triggers.

Statistical adequacy. Underpowered studies get flagged at the desk stage. If you ran a study with n=12 and claim significant results, expect pushback before external review even begins.

Data availability. PLOS ONE requires that supporting data be available to reviewers and readers. Proprietary datasets with no access statement, or data available "upon reasonable request" without a formal repository link, will slow your paper or get it rejected outright.

Ethics documentation. Human subjects research needs IRB approval documentation. Animal research needs IACUC or equivalent. These aren't optional: they're required fields in the submission system.

Software and code. If your analysis relies on custom code, you're expected to make it accessible. A GitHub link is fine. "Code available on request" is not.

Timeline: what to expect at each stage

PLOS ONE publishes detailed processing data. Here's what typical timelines look like:

Total time from submission to published article: 4-8 months for straightforward papers. Complex revisions can push 12+ months.

One PLOS ONE-specific timing factor: the academic editor assigned to your paper matters. PLOS ONE uses a large pool of editors across disciplines, and workload varies significantly. If your paper sits at desk review for more than 3 weeks with no action, you can email the editorial office to ask about status.

What reviewers actually evaluate

PLOS ONE sends papers to 2 external reviewers, occasionally 3. The review criteria mirror the desk review: they're not judging whether this is the most exciting paper of the year. They're assessing whether it's technically correct.

The structured review form asks reviewers to evaluate:

• Study design and statistical analysis: appropriate methods for the research question?
• Reporting of key results: complete and accurate presentation of findings?
• Discussion and conclusions: do they stay within what the data support?
• Adherence to reporting guidelines: are the appropriate checklists followed?
• Ethical compliance: proper documentation of approvals?

Reviewers are explicitly told NOT to reject based on perceived significance or expected citation impact. In practice, experienced PLOS ONE reviewers stick to this. You'll rarely get a rejection that says "this isn't novel enough." If you do, that's inappropriate and you can flag it to the editor.

Desk rejection: the most common reasons

Based on patterns across the literature and author reports, the most frequent PLOS ONE desk rejections fall into these categories:

Reporting guideline violations. CONSORT, STROBE, ARRIVE, PRISMA: missing or incomplete compliance is probably the single most common fixable rejection reason. Download the relevant checklist and fill it out completely before submission.

Inadequate statistical power. Small sample sizes without a priori power calculations, or post-hoc tests that don't account for multiple comparisons, consistently get flagged. If your study is exploratory by nature, frame it that way explicitly.

Missing data availability statement. Not just vague: PLOS ONE needs a specific statement about where data are deposited and how to access them. Figshare, Dryad, Zenodo, a journal supplement, or a GitHub repository all work. "Available on request" has been unacceptable since 2014.

Ethics statement issues. Missing IRB/IACUC number, incorrect committee name, or absent consent statement for human subjects work will trigger an immediate request or desk rejection.

Out-of-scope conclusions. If your abstract or discussion makes claims that go beyond what your data support, editors flag it. PLOS ONE reviewers are specifically trained to catch overreach.

How to write for PLOS ONE specifically

The key shift when writing for PLOS ONE is to make your rigor visible. Don't bury methodological decisions in the methods section: explain them. If you chose a sample size for a specific reason, say so. If you pre-registered the study, link to it prominently.

For the abstract, structure it tightly: background, objective, methods summary, key results (with numbers), and conclusion. PLOS ONE abstracts are indexed and read in isolation: make every sentence count.

For the discussion, stay close to your data. The PLOS ONE reviewer's checklist includes a specific item about whether conclusions are supported by the presented results. If you extrapolate significantly, expect a revision request.

For figures, PLOS ONE has specific formatting requirements (TIFF/EPS, minimum 300 DPI for halftones). Submit production-ready figures the first time. Reformatting after acceptance delays publication.

Article processing charge

PLOS ONE's APC is $1,895 USD. This applies to all accepted papers. PLOS has institutional agreements with many universities that reduce or eliminate this cost: check the PLOS institutional account program before worrying about paying out of pocket. Many authors at US and European institutions pay nothing.

For authors without institutional support, PLOS ONE offers fee assistance and waivers. The waiver process is straightforward and based on self-reported financial need. If cost is an issue, apply: the journal approves most waiver requests.

Practical submission checklist

• [ ] Complete the relevant reporting guideline checklist (CONSORT, STROBE, ARRIVE, PRISMA, or equivalent)
• [ ] Data availability statement points to a specific repository or explains access
• [ ] Ethics approval documentation is complete (IRB/IACUC number, committee name, consent statement)
• [ ] Custom code linked to a public repository
• [ ] Power calculation or sample size justification in methods
• [ ] Figures submitted at correct resolution and format (TIFF/EPS, 300+ DPI)
• [ ] Competing interests declared explicitly for all authors
• [ ] Pre-registration documented if applicable (OSF, ClinicalTrials.gov, etc.)
• [ ] Conclusions in abstract and discussion stay within what data support
• [ ] All supplementary files listed and labeled

Related resources

See our full PLOS ONE journal guide for acceptance rates, turnaround benchmarks, and editorial scope details.

• How to choose the right journal for your paper: when to choose PLOS ONE vs a specialty journal
• eLife submission guide: the other major open-access journal worth understanding
• Desk rejection red flags: the patterns that get papers rejected before external review
• PLOS ONE acceptance rate
• eLife vs PLOS ONE
• Impact factor data from Clarivate Journal Citation Reports

The Bottom Line

PLOS ONE's process is well-defined and the timeline is predictable. The desk rejection rate is low but it exists, and the peer review bar is real. Before you submit, confirm your methods section is rigorous and your data availability statement is complete , those are the two places PLOS ONE consistently pushes back.

Sources

• Journal official submission guidelines
• Author experience data compiled from journal tracker communities (SciRev, Researcher.Life)
• Editorial policies published on journal homepage
• Pre-Submission Checklist , 25-point audit before you submit

See also

• PLOS ONE Impact Factor 2026: 2.6
• Is PLOS ONE a Good Journal?

• PLOS ONE Acceptance Rate: 31% Explained