Although the impact factor has dropped greatly, the quality of the articles is always stable. One third of the ten great progresses in the field of microbes every year come from PLOS Pathgens. It is a fact that the circle is small. The positioning of this journal is for the minority. What required is not only innovation, but also the deeper mechanisms Therefore, it is normal for an article to have eight or nine large figures and more than a dozen supplements. Therefore, do not underestimate this journal for its 6-score impact factor; many ordinary journals with 8 or 9-score impact factor cannot be compared to it. This journal doesn’t publish more reviews and articles with hot topics to improve its impact factor. I fell that the research cannot be surly accepted by PNAS, the EMBO Journal, etc. will not be accepted by PLOS Pathogens as well. Because the latter one may be more difficult.

(261) Thank | 千里秦川

The overall impact factor of journals of microbiology is low. The status of PLoS Pathogens is equivalent to Plant Cell in plants or Cancer Cell in cancer field. It is a super classic journal in microbial pathogens, and you can hardly find any valueless articles. There only a few domestic laboratories that can have articles published on PLoS Pathogens.

(63) Thank | 我是一阵风

Recently our team submitted a paper to this journal. After three serious revisions, it was finally accepted for publication. During the revision process, I feel that the requirements of the journal were particularly high, and the level of reviewer scrutiny is also very high!

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Articles from PLoS Pathogens, Genetics, and Biology are more suitable for research workers to learn from. They are considered reliable, with high recognition.

(0) Thank | fission Yeast

@aaass, WOS can search for articles published by Chinese people within one year, but why can't I find people who have published several articles in one year in recent years? Not to mention Chinese people. Why don't you reveal yourself?

(0) Thank | fission Yeast

No way, how can a student from our college submit several papers in just one year? It's not that mysterious.

(0) Thank | aaass

PLoS Pathogens - Is it not simple to operate an impact factor? The editorial team of PLoS Pathogens, dedicated to our little corner of microbiology, nearly encompasses all the active big names. Let them write a few reviews and cover a few hot topics. These big names will attract attention. Publishing a review article by a big name in each direction every year can easily boost the impact factor to over 10.

But, if PLoS Pathogens were to do this, it would no longer be PLoS Pathogens, it would become Nature XX. I feel that PLoS is willing to sacrifice impact factors to maintain a high quality. It is still worth encouraging!! This leaves opportunities for publishing top journals in non-popular fields. Each issue of our Plos Pathogens group contains essential reading materials

(0) Thank | Jason

PLOS Pathogens is definitely the preferred choice for microbiology! Why submit to a botany journal? It wouldn't look good on your resume

(0) Thank | 康斯坦茨

It's quite challenging. Doing research on plants can be compared to plant physiology, new phytologist, etc., but it is harder and more professional than the latter. Many articles exceed PNAS and plant cell. The requirement for innovation is very high. After all, it used to be the No.1 in the field of pathogens. The reviewer's comments are very helpful in improving the articles. It takes about half a year from submission to acceptance. Students have considered giving up at one point

(0) Thank | 种玉米的土豆

Submitted to PP at the end of 2022 and was rejected after review. After adding six months of experiments and a lot of data, it was resubmitted but surprisingly not sent for review again.

Later, it was submitted to NC and after more than half a year of trouble, it was finally accepted. The professionalism of the editor and reviewers at PP is far superior compared to NC. Making revisions based on their feedback greatly improved the article. Ultimately, which is better, PP or NC, considering NC has an impact factor two to three times higher than PP? However, it feels like NC can still be a bit lenient, as the editors and reviewers are not as professional. It's much harder to get away with low-quality work at PP

(6) Thank | 留一刀

The impact factor cannot reflect the true level of top journals in the industry. It is much harder to publish in PLoS compared to many medical journals with impact factors of ten or twenty. Chinese articles account for less than ten percent, making it difficult to publish

(0) Thank | 春芳

Planted one crop this year, spent one month on the first draft, sent it back two months later, made some minor revisions two weeks after that, and accepted it a week later

(2) Thank | 春芳

Cannot publish in Cell Host Micro and Nature Micro in non-popular fields. Plos Pathogens is the best choice. The additional experiments required for submission are twice the amount of data. The editors and reviewers are very professional and well-known in the industry. Although it is a 7-point journal, the quality of the articles is higher than 10 points.

(0) Thank | 茜54655

The submission was made before the end of 2022 Christmas, only to find out that the entire magazine company would be on a 20-day vacation... It wasn't until mid-January when the magazine company resumed work that it was quickly sent for review.

The first review took a month, with major revisions suggested. All three reviewers highly praised its novelty, with only a few experiments needing to be supplemented. PLOS PATHOGENS requires that if more than three experiments need to be supplemented according to a reviewer, the recommendation would be to reject the submission. They also mentioned that the English writing was terrible.

Then, two months were spent on conducting the experiments. After one month, Reviewer 1 provided minor revisions, mainly pointing out the issue with English. Several reviewers carefully made modifications on the PDF, pointing out every error. It was embarrassing...

However, the response to the minor revisions was somewhat careless, as some description problems were not answered seriously. A few days later, the editor replied, saying that I did not answer every question seriously, and even though some of the questions did not require modifications in the article, they still needed to be explained in detail in the response. It was frustrating...

After submitting the revised version again, it was finally accepted.

PLOS PATHOGENS magazine has a fast processing speed. The submission usually reaches the editor's hands the next day, and the feedback is also given quickly.

The editors are experts in their respective fields, and their names are publicly available for verification. The review comments are objective, fair, meticulous, and have strict requirements.

PLOS PATHOGENS does not only publish popular articles in order to pursue impact factor. Articles in various fields of pathogen research can be published as long as they are innovative and complete.

Although it took a whole six months to be accepted, the overall experience was good.

(0) Thank | 云卷云舒5

"A magazine with a strong reputation. Our laboratory can produce one article in about three to four years. Basically, it takes submitting three to four articles to have one of them sent for review. Our laboratory is considered one of the top laboratories in the country. Being able to publish in PLOS Pathogens is a symbol of strong competence."

(17) Thank | David zhou

I had a 10-month-long back-and-forth experience of submitting and rejection. The process was extremely painful. But I have to say, PLOS Pathogens is impeccable! They seem to have never engaged in any manipulative actions to influence impact factors, such as chasing hot topics, writing reviews or letters, or manipulating citations. I will continue to strive and aim for a breakthrough!

(3) Thank | haosun

Based on my interview experience, schools in the US and Canada do not often ask about the practical applications of what you have done; as long as you can explain the scientific significance clearly, it should be sufficient. I hope this is helpful to you.

(0) Thank | 安迪.孟菲斯

In China, it is unknown that in Canada and the United States, in the field of basic medicine, having three or more first-author publications in PLOS Pathogens can secure a teaching position interview. According to my colleague's experience, it should not be a problem to obtain a teaching position at a regular school. However, luck plays a role when it comes to top schools. The focus is on what you have done rather than which journal you have published articles in. The uniqueness and novelty of your work are the key factors for obtaining a teaching position in Europe and America, rather than the specific journal in which you have published.

(0) Thank | 安迪.孟菲斯

Next target magazine! Currently, it is highly recognized in the Western academic community. The boss has always said that PLOS Pathogens is a very good journal. I don't know how it is in China. Will it not count if the impact factor is less than 10? Are there any friends who can answer this question? It's about to submit in one or two weeks, and I don't want to submit to some not-so-well-known journals just to meet the 10-point requirement. Welcome to leave a message for discussion.

(2) Thank | song

One of the top journals in virology. Don't focus too much on the impact factor; the influence of Plos Pathogens is far greater than some journals with scores of a dozen or so.

(9) Thank | luofeiyu

All WB original strips, including technical replicates and biological replicates (For review, can also be published in the supplementary materials); all original data for the figures (Publish, required to be included in the supplementary materials).

(2) Thank | 齐天大圣呀

What are the original data required for all? Thank you!

(0) Thank | 梦溪笔谈

Received: April 21, 2021
Accepted: September 3, 2021
Published: September 20, 2021
First review took 30 days, followed by a major revision period of 60 days. The second review took 15 days, and then a minor revision period of 30 days was given. However, it was returned in just 10 days and accepted. I have to say, the professionalism and dedication of the reviewers are exceptional. A good journal is indeed a good journal.

(7) Thank | 玛卡巴卡9089

Already submitted and accepted with revisions,
Received: February 9, 2021
Accepted: June 30, 2021
Published: July 23, 2021
The first review took one month, with three editors providing around 30 suggestions for revisions. The major revisions took two months, and I procrastinated in editing my manuscript for a long time. The second review took approximately one month, and in principle, it was accepted. After that, there were three rounds of formatting changes before it was finally accepted. The original data needs to be uploaded. The journal has a good reputation and word-of-mouth, and the opinions of the editors and reviewers are very fair. The only downside is that the impact factor (IF) did not increase much. I hope it continues to develop better and better.

(2) Thank | 齐天大圣呀

has anything to do with the circle, as long as the quality of the article is good and the novelty is high, OK.

(0) Thank | Anonymous