1. Beyond Peer Review Kristen Ratan ALA Annual Meeting 28 June 2014 PLOS

2. 2 ‪jakebeal.blogspot.com320 × 255Search by image

3. 3 ‪‪http://jasonpriem.org/2010/10/medline-literature-growth-chart/

4. 4 http://editorsupdate.elsevier.com/poll-results/pressure-grants-publish-driving- rise-unethical-practices-authors/ Yes

5. 5 “the inflated value given to publishing in a small number of so-called “high impact” journals has put pressure on authors to rush into print, cut corners, exaggerate their findings, and overstate the significance of their work.”

6. 6

7. 7 PLOS ALM 12,288 comments over 124,897 articles

8. 8 ~2500 reviews/week in PLOS ONE

9. 9 Editor Reviewers Authors Pre-publication

10. 10 Continuous Evaluation Editor Reviewers Authors Editor Reviewers Authors Editor Reviewers Authors Editor Reviewers Authors Pre-publication Y1 Y2 Y3

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13 ALM Reports alm.plos.org Allows researchers, institutions & funders to: create a report of the ALMs for a single or set of PLOS articles view a summary of the metrics along with an accompanying set of data visualizations. Search based on: keyword author name & country affiliation publication date subject areas funder

14. Open Evaluation: Importance to Science & Shared Knowledge This work makes a minor contribution to the field of study This work makes a significant contribution to science knowledge This work advances the field If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: This work is a major scientific breakthrough This work has an important or novel method This work will lead to reinterpretation of well- established findings This work opens a new area of inquiry in the field This work has an important or significant conclusion: This work makes little to no contribution to science knowledge I think this work was not worth doing

15. 15