PLOS ONE 润色咨询

PLoS One

出版年份:2006 年文章数:239709 投稿命中率: 开通期刊会员,数据随心看

出版周期:Irregular 自引率:6.0% 审稿周期: 开通期刊会员,数据随心看

前往期刊查询

期刊讨论

  1. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-19 匿名用户

    发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper
    标 题: Re: plos one
    发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内

    别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛......

    0

  2. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-19 匿名用户

    谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍
    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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment.

    ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。

    “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。

    现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了!
    这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢!

    我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量:
    In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers.
    也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。

    0

  3. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-18 匿名用户

    不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!

    0

  4. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-18 匿名用户

    medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?


    ++++++++++++++++

    PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?

    0

  5. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-18 匿名用户

    审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0
    经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?

    0

  6. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-18 匿名用户

    谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!

    0

  7. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-18 ms7269483029162029

    做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!
    审稿人比较专业

    0

  8. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-18 匿名用户

    还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!

    0

  9. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-18 匿名用户

    没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。

    0

  10. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499893, encodeId=8dbe49989327, content=发信人: smevo (smevo), 信区: Paper <br> 标 题: Re: plos one <br> 发信站: 水木社区 (Tue Jun 19 11:01:17 2012), 站内 <br> <br> 别逗了,PLoS One发表论文现在已经基本普及到很多县了,如果你是中央级或省及干部,你还愿意把自己的论文投到这种期刊上吗?不发还好,人家瞧不出来有啥水平。一发人家都明白了,不就是PLoS One嘛...... <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=113, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:08:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499892, encodeId=452149989223, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来! <br> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ <br> 你看来不关心这一点啊!看看vikipedia上的资料介绍 <br> 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 ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment. <br> <br> ".....does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection..."意思很明确,不管你的工作知否重要,不作为文章被接受或者被拒绝的理由(留给后人评说,呵呵)。 <br> <br> “.....PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously..."PLOS ONE只看你的实验能否支持你的结论。 <br> <br> 现在明白了吗?这个杂志说白了就是只要你的实验能支持你的结论,就行啦,工作是否重要都不要了,更不要说啥子创新了! <br> 这放在国外也许有一定的意义,毕竟老外自律性强。放在中国,呵呵,中国人太聪明了(其它事情也一样,放在国外是好事,放在国内就变了),一看你IF这么高,IF又跟利益直接挂钩。呵呵,灌水不灌死你才怪呢! <br> <br> 我们在看看这个杂志创刊以来论文的发表量: <br> In 2006 the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world. In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[7] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[8] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[9] In 2012 PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers. <br> 也就是说:2006年138篇;2007年1200篇;2008年2800篇;2009年4406篇;2010年6749篇;2011年13798篇;2012年23468篇。而在很多年份在该杂志的论文前十名都是中国人。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=90, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Tue Nov 19 09:01:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-19, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499887, encodeId=3a7b49988e67, content=不管Plos one 好与不好,它就是一个期刊,如果你能看上它就去尝试这个期刊,如果你看不上,你尽管去投别的期刊!如果它实在不行,迟早会被淘汰,只是时间问题。我国的科研内幕总所周知,我们要去审视整个科研界及科研制度,而不是让某个期刊成为替罪羊,好与不好,时间会证实,望大家理智!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=129, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 23:18:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499886, encodeId=37a3499886f5, content=medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧? <br> <br> <br> ++++++++++++++++ <br> <br> PLOS ONE的水平大家有目共睹,不至于说几句就说是诋毁吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=124, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 22:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499885, encodeId=cc5649988516, content=审稿速度:3.0 | 投稿命中率:50.0<br>经验分享:medsci系统维护人员,对于一些在这诋毁该杂志的发言人,是不是应该处理一下。批评可以,但得有个度吧!有理有据,言论得严谨吧?, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=105, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 21:44:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499882, encodeId=9830499882b2, content=谁说PLOS ONE连创新都不要了?请拿出依据来!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=108, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:17:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=829337, encodeId=341982933eac, content=做生物信息学的投这个的话,比计算机领域的期刊快了不知道多少倍!!!<br> 审稿人比较专业 , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=11, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=48345414140, createdName=ms7269483029162029, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 18:05:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499881, encodeId=f9fd499881a7, content=还有那些说自己投国内杂志,或者分数低的杂志被拒,改投PLOS ONE就中了,请您共享一下文章呗,让大家看看到底有多烂!, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=118, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:38:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499880, encodeId=b2784998804c, content=没意思,有本事自己在PLOS ONE上发几十篇啊,科研本来就是在探索,不管做了什么都是有价值的,只要你有道理,这个杂志是让大家共享科研成果,就是个公共图书馆,这有什么不好吗?!说是为了发3分以上的人才投,那你也可以投啊,何必这么评论一个杂志呢,一点辩证都没有,怎么做科研呢,更何况这个杂志有好多的好文章呢。, beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=182, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 17:32:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=), GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=499871, encodeId=77ef4998e15e, content=《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。 <br> <br> 再看看PLOS ONE <br> 今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人! <br> 前25位只有两位外国人! <br> <br> PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下: <br> <br>   中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30 <br> <br>   德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10 <br> <br>   不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点! <br> <br>   又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比: <br> <br>   北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6 <br> <br>   哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4 <br> <br>   北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流! <br> <br>   再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量: <br> <br>   清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3 <br> <br>   麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3 <br> <br>   几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了! <br> <br>   结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流 <br> <br>   结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平 <br> <br>   总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> , beContent=null, objectType=tool_impact_factor, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=109, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=null, createdBy=f0620, createdName=, createdTime=Mon Nov 18 07:52:00 CST 2013, time=2013-11-18, status=1, ipAttribution=)]
    2013-11-18 匿名用户

    《晶体学报》是国际晶体学界的旗舰刊物,但这样一份重量级的国际期刊,它的发稿门槛却非常低。正因为它发稿容易,所以也就成了中国科学家的“研究对象 ”。如果你上网搜一搜,就会发现这份期刊简直都快成咱中国科学家的自留地了。2005年到2008年9月,该期刊E版上共发表论文14921篇,其中来自中国的论文为7519篇。也就是说,该期刊上的论文一半以上是中国人发表的。

    再看看PLOS ONE
    今天通过ISI web of knowlege分析了一下,PLoS ONE发表文章总数前10位的全是中国人!
    前25位只有两位外国人!

    PUBMED了一下中国科学院和德国马普研究所两者在PLoS One 上发文的情况, 从2006年到2003年的数据如下:

      中国科学院 2 11 31 54 91 278 475 30

      德国马普所 2 9 28 43 59 108 132 10

      不查不知道, 一查吓一跳。 中国科学院比德国马普还要强得不是一点半点!

      又看北京大学和哈佛大学的对比:

      北京大学 0 1 5 7 13 47 96 6

      哈佛大学 0 7 5 15 11 31 48 4

      北大后来居上, 是为勇者, 已经跑步进入国际一流!

      再看看清华大学和麻省理工的较量:

      清华大学 1 1 2 3 8 21 27 3

      麻省理工 2 9 7 12 19 28 52 3

      几年来清华被赫赫有名的MIT压得上气不接下气, 终于可以平起平坐了!

      结论A: 中国科学院的科学研究水平早已经进入世界一流

      结论B: 中国顶级大学的科学研究水平已经达到国际超一流大学的水平

      总的结论是: 考察 PLoS One 上发表的学术论文数量表明中国的科学研究水平已经超过世界其它传统强国





    0

共500条页码: 50/50页10条/页
分享您的投稿经验,提升MI经验值,获取更多积分