Catriona MacCallum

Learn More
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Funding: The authors have no funding or support to report.(More)
S ince 2003, when PLoS Biology was launched, there has been a spectacular growth in " open-access " journals. The Directory of Open Access Journals (http:⁄⁄www. doaj.org/), hosted by Lund University Libraries, lists 2,816 open-access journals as this article goes to press (and probably more by the time you read this). Authors also have various " open-access(More)
What responsibility do scientists have to report the experimental work and analyses they do on animals fully and transparently, and what responsibilities do funders, journal editors, and reviewers have to ensure that what is reported is done so appropri-ately? While the answer to both of these questions might seem obvious, the accumulating evidence suggests(More)
Today, the Public Library of Science publishes a collection of essays, perspectives, and reviews about how genomics, with all its associated tools and techniques, can provide insights into our understanding of emerging infectious disease (http://ploscollections. org/emerginginfectiousdisease/) [1–13]. This collection, focused on human disease, is(More)
Funding organisations, scientists, and the general public need robust and reliable ways to evaluate the output of scientific research. In this issue of PLOS Biology, Adam Eyre-Walker and Nina Stoletzki analyse the subjective assessment and citations of more than 6,000 published papers [1]. They show that expert assessors are biased by the impact factor (IF)(More)