Yahoo奇摩 網頁搜尋

搜尋結果

  1. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Open_accessOpen access - Wikipedia

    In 2009, there were approximately 4,800 active open access journals, publishing around 190,000 articles. As of February 2019, over 12,500 open access journals are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals.

  2. This is a list of open-access journals by field. The list contains notable journals which have a policy of full open access. It does not include delayed open access journals, hybrid open access journals, or related collections or indexing services. True open-access journals can be split into two categories:

  3. 其他人也問了

  4. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a website that hosts a community-curated list of open access journals, maintained by Infrastructure Services for Open Access (IS4OA). It was launched in 2003 with 300 open access journals.

    • English
    • Online
    • No
    • 2003
  5. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › PLOS_OnePLOS One - Wikipedia

    • History
    • Publication Concept
    • Business Model
    • Reception
    • Response to Controversial Publications

    Development

    The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded PLOS a $9 million grant in December 2002 and $1 million grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new free-access biomedical journals. Later, PLOS One was launched in December 2006 as a beta version named PLOS One. It launched with commenting and note-making functionality, and added the ability to rate articles in July 2007. In September 2007, the ability to leave "trackbacks" on articles was added. In August 2008, the journ...

    Output and turnaround

    The number of papers published by PLOS One grew rapidly from inception to 2013 and has since declined somewhat. M By 2010, it was estimated to have become the largest journal in the world, and in 2011, 1 in 60 articles indexed by PubMed were published by PLOS One. By September 2017, PLOS One confirmed they had published over 200,000 articles. By November 2017, the journal Scientific Reports overtook PLOS Onein terms of output. At PLOS One, the median review time has grown from 37 days to 125...

    Management

    The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge. He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012. Damian Pattinson then held the chief editorial position until December 2015. Joerg Heber was as editor-in-chief from November 2016before Emily Chenette took over in that position in March 2021.

    PLOS One is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead, PLOS Oneonly verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it ...

    As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, open access to PLOS One is financed by an article processing charge, typically paid by the author's institution or by the author. This model allows PLOS journals to make all articles available to the public for free immediately upon publication. As of April 2021,[update] PLOS One charges a publ...

    In September 2009, PLOS One received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers. The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term p...

    Alleged sexism in one peer review instance

    On April 29, 2015, Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head, postdoctoral fellows at the University of Sussex and Australian National University respectively, posted a rejection letter, which they said was sent to them by a peer reviewer for a journal they did not wish to name. The rejection letter concerned Ingleby and Head's paper about differences in PhD-to-postdoc transition between male and female scientists. The reviewer argued that the authors should "find one or two male biologists to work with"...

    CreatorGate

    On March 3, 2016, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article about the functioning of the human hand due to outrage among the journal's readership over a reference to "Creator" inside the paper. The authors, who received grants from the Chinese National Basic Research Program and National Natural Science Foundation of China for this work, responded by saying "Creator" is a poorly-translated idiom (造化(者); lit.'that which creates or transforms') which means "nature" in the C...

    Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

    On August 27, 2018, the editors of PLOS One initiated a reevaluation of an article they published two weeks earlier submitted by Brown University School of Public Health assistant professor Lisa Littman. The study described a phenomenon of social contagion, or "cluster outbreaks" in gender dysphoria among young people, which Littman called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria". Data was obtained from a survey placed on three websites for concerned parents of children with gender dysphoria, asking fo...

  6. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › PLOSPLOS - Wikipedia

    PLOS (for Public Library of Science; PLoS until 2012 [1]) is a nonprofit publisher of open-access journals in science, technology, and medicine and other scientific literature, under an open-content license. It was founded in 2000 and launched its first journal, PLOS Biology, in October 2003.

  7. The number of open access journals increased by an estimated 500% during the 2000–2009 decade. Also, the average number of articles that were published per open access journal per year increased from approximately 20 to 40 during the same period

  8. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Open_scienceOpen science - Wikipedia

    Open access. Open peer review. Open educational resources. Background. Science is broadly understood as collecting, analyzing, publishing, reanalyzing, critiquing, and reusing data. Proponents of open science identify a number of barriers that impede or dissuade the broad dissemination of scientific data.