When all voices are heard, we can make science stronger and improve the world of tomorrow
With you, the researchers of today, we can transform the future of Open Science
Change starts here. To each of you who want to make science communication better: we're listening.
As our advocates and critics, creators and testers of new ideas, researchers like you guide the way.
Like this video? Share it with friends!
Together, we can cultivate a more inclusive and trustworthy future for science.
We want to grow your presence in all places and spaces
Our definition of Open is one that invites all researchers to contribute, learn from, and build on scientific discoveries, no matter where you are in the world.
Listen to our Co-Editors-in-Chief’s discuss diversity, equity and inclusion in Open Science from the field of Global Public Health
Like this video? Share it with friends!
We are inviting applications for Editorial Board Members for PLOS ONE. Will you help us shape standards in research?
See our Editorial Director’s updates on our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.
Partnerships and policies
We’re working hard to recognize local needs that can more-fully inform our ways of working and continue to develop editorial processes that recognize and minimize bias in the publication process.
Launching new journals
Unified in addressing global health and environmental challenges from diverse, local perspectives, the new journals help us expand our international footprint.
Open Science cannot be shaped from one corner of the world
Without equitable opportunities to publish, Open Access cannot be truly open. To support authors of all research communities, funding backgrounds, and institutional requirements, all PLOS journals offer APC-alternative business models. Our institutional partnerships allow you to publish without worrying about cost.
The need for equity in publishing models
What do you think? We discuss the need for better business models for Open Access and Open Science, especially models that are more inclusive of all disciplines and global regions and economies.
Share this discussion with friends!
How would you transform Science communication?
Leave a comment below.
Thank you for taking part in this discussion. Please note that your information will only be used for the purposes of leaving a comment on this discussion board.
Comments containing advertisements will be removed.
5 responses to “Inclusion”
Leave a Reply
With you, we can transform the Future of Open Science
* required
The science communication should be without any discrimination (depending on the gender, country, race or ethnic origin). Even the review process should not include the discrimination. I have noticed most of the time reviewers are selected depending on the race and ethnic origin of the research paper to review. Also, there should be methods to control the origin of predatory journals publishing even papers rejected by reviewers, just to make money. Although those journals have achieved good impact factor as mentioned on their website. This makes reviewers/scientists disappointed.
I consider the open access mode of publishing by private publishing companies the same sort of profitmongering as in the previous copyrighted mode. If anything has changed it is that the current mode is more risk-free for the publishing companies.
Publishing should be the domain of state bodies or non-profit agencies. The authors responsibility should be to only produce quality knowledge and to communicate that. There should not be any requirement for the authors to bother about publishing charges unless they want to do that.
Es una gran idea para publicar en este medio, esto es muy necesario para aquellos investigadores de países menos desarrollados donde los costos para publicar son muy elevados y ocasionalmente las revistas son poco difundidas, un saludo a ustedes y bienvenida esta oportunidad
The European initiative Plan S did not come with an important policy: defining a maximal price to be financed. The charges over authors of some reviews are insanely high and out of the world! There has been an unacceptable transfer of public money to private publications via extremely high costs of publication.
I agree this view, the articles should be expediently acquired.