Open teaching resource / Graduate research skills
Work through one PLOS ONE case, trace four decisions to two official pages, and leave with a source record you can use for another journal.
Fictional case / Start here
A team plans to submit a systematic review to PLOS ONE. They report explicit search and screening methods but did not pool results statistically. Their draft has a study-selection flow diagram, no completed PRISMA checklist, and no statement about whether a protocol exists. A colleague says that the journal excludes all reviews and that the team must select Review in the submission system.
Your taskUse sources A and B to correct the colleague, identify the missing submission items, and state what these pages cannot establish. Record a section location for each answer.
See the four questions01 / Work the case
Fictional teaching case, not a real manuscript or assessment of research quality.
This case tests interpretation of published instructions. It does not verify the team's methods, cover every submission requirement, or predict editorial acceptance.
Source A / PLOS ONE
Find this section: Criterion 1: original research; article types considered; Systematic reviews row
What it establishes: The general exclusion of reviews has an explicit systematic-review exception, conditional on comprehensive, unbiased literature sampling.
Still unverified: Whether the fictional team's methods satisfy that condition.
Source B / PLOS ONE
Find this section: Guidelines for Specific Study Types > Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
What it establishes: Meta-analysis is optional. The instructions specify the submission category, PRISMA materials and protocol disclosure.
Still unverified: That a complete reporting checklist makes the study rigorous, or that every submission rule has been checked.
Open the linked pages and check the named sections before reading the key. A source may be official without answering every question. If a page is inaccessible, mark the live check incomplete.
Write one answer, a source ID and a reason for each question. Use your own notes or the two-page learner worksheet.
02 / Check your reasoning
These are model responses to the fictional case, not a completed submission audit. Keep conditions and unresolved judgments visible.
Read A's specific exception alongside B's explanation that statistical pooling is optional. A general exclusion cannot erase its stated exception.
Next action: Check the actual search and selection methods separately. Do not rename a narrative review to evade the condition.
Evidence: Source A: Criteria for PublicationSource B: Submission Guidelines
Source B distinguishes the name of the study design from the category selected during submission.
Next action: Identify the systematic-review design in the cover letter. Recheck the live menu before submitting.
Evidence: Source B: Submission Guidelines
Source B specifies both items. A flow diagram alone is not the complete reporting package, and the figure instruction includes an applicability condition.
Next action: Map each applicable checklist item to the manuscript. Check the PRISMA templates linked by the journal; this worksheet is not a replacement checklist.
Evidence: Source B: Submission Guidelines
This conditional instruction does not establish that every review without a protocol is automatically ineligible.
Next action: Ask the team for the true protocol status. Do not invent a protocol or registration number. If an existing protocol is unregistered, preserve that ambiguity and seek journal clarification.
Evidence: Source B: Submission Guidelines
03 / Take it with you
No email or account required. The PDFs and this page use the same case and answer key.
Instructor guide / 3 pages
Case brief and session plan, source-linked model answers, a completed record, an audit checklist and reuse notes.
Download instructor guide PDFLearner worksheet / 2 pages
The case and four response spaces, followed by a reusable source-tracing record. The model answers stay in the separate guide.
Download learner worksheet PDFTagged PDFs with selectable text and linked sources. The worksheet is designed for printing or PDF annotation, not fillable form fields. All lesson content is also available in HTML; PDF/UA certification is not claimed.
04 / Facilitate or work independently
Preparation: open sources A and B, check the named sections, and share the learner worksheet. Allow more time when participants are new to journal publishing or encounter access barriers.
Name the difference between article-type eligibility and manuscript readiness.
Locate the exact sections in A and B. Record the owner and the access date.
Answer the prompts on learner page 1, with a source ID and a reason.
Correct one overclaim. Compare the result with the completed record.
On learner page 2, start one decision for another journal and identify what still needs checking.
Use the Source Map to locate candidate official pages. Its classifications are a starting point, not confirmation that an old rule still applies.
Use these prompts for feedback, not a validated score of research skill. A named unresolved issue can be a good answer; an invented rule cannot.
Recheck the two PLOS sections before a session. If an instruction changed, record the change and discuss it instead of grading against an outdated key. If access fails, use the dated paraphrases for a limited interpretation exercise, mark live verification incomplete, and do not call it a current policy check.
For a shorter demonstration, complete only the first decision. For a longer workshop, compare the same decision across two journals. Learners can write, dictate or discuss responses; no private manuscript is needed.
05 / Reuse with attribution
Original Manusights case, explanations and worksheet: CC BY 4.0. Credit the teaching edition and identify changes. Publisher content, ACRL material and trademarks retain their own rights.
Journal Source Literacy (suggested 20-minute activity). Use a fictional PLOS ONE submission case and two official pages to distinguish eligibility, reporting instructions and unresolved manuscript judgments. Complete four source-backed decisions, check the answer key, then start a source-tracing record for another journal. Free HTML and printable materials from Manusights, CC BY 4.0.
Build a versioned syllabus or LibGuide packet.
Manusights. (2026). Journal Source Literacy: a PLOS ONE case (Teaching edition 2026.09.11.1). https://manusights.com/research/journal-source-map/teaching-kit. CC BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Identify adaptations; publisher material retains its own rights.
This September teaching edition replaces the longer v1.8 teaching packet. The underlying Source Map remains dataset version 1.8, with evidence reviewed 2026-08-28. Its DOI does not archive these revised teaching PDFs.
Earlier v1.8 instructor packet · Earlier v1.8 workbook. These are historical materials, not the current exercise.
Report a public use. Optional: a reported use is not a verified backlink or endorsement.
Sources and evidence
Manusights checked the two PLOS sections on 11 September 2026. Their section locations and limits are shown beside the case and linked again in the answer key. Recheck them before applying this exercise to a real submission.
ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: The exercise applies contextual authority: an official page can control one submission decision without settling another. This is Manusights' lesson design, not an ACRL-endorsed or validated assessment.
Source-checked and inspected in HTML and PDF. Timing is a suggested plan, not a measured learner completion time. No learner-outcome study or institutional endorsement is claimed.
This edition has passed Manusights internal publication review only; it has not been independently or peer reviewed.
Report a correction. Maintaining this teaching case does not refresh or approve every record in the parent dataset.
Continue the teaching path
Return researchers to a clear publishing task, or give library staff the ready-to-copy guide language and workshop routes.
