PLOS ONE Manuscript Submission Requirements
Validate your manuscript against PLOS ONE's sound science criterion, data sharing policy, and mandatory submission requirements.
Check my manuscript, it's freeNo account required · Results in <2 minutes · PDF, Word & LaTeX
PLOS ONE submission requirements
PLOS ONE is the world's largest scientific journal, publishing over 30,000 articles per year across all disciplines of science and medicine. Unlike traditional journals, PLOS ONE does not make editorial decisions based on perceived impact or novelty — only scientific rigor and methodology. This makes PLOS ONE an attractive target for valid research that may not fit high-selectivity journals. However, PLOS ONE has strict data sharing requirements, mandatory reporting checklists, and a required author summary that catch many first-time submitters unprepared.
PLOS ONE (Public Library of Science ONE) is the world's largest scientific journal by publication volume, publishing more than 30,000 articles annually across all areas of science and medicine. Its founding editorial philosophy — to evaluate only scientific rigor, not impact or novelty — has made it the destination for valid research that doesn't fit the selectivity criteria of high-prestige journals. But PLOS ONE is not an easy alternative: its data sharing, transparency, and reporting requirements are among the strictest in academic publishing.
The Sound Science Criterion
PLOS ONE's editorial decisions are based on a single question: is this science conducted and reported to a rigorous standard? Editors do not ask whether the results are novel, impactful, or interesting to the field. This means:
- Null results and negative findings are equally publishable as positive results
- Replication studies of established findings are welcomed
- Confirmatory research is valued alongside exploratory work
However, "sound science only" is not a low bar. Methods must be described with full reproducibility in mind, statistical analyses must be appropriate and complete, and reporting standards must be met without exception. Desk rejections at PLOS ONE are almost always administrative (missing checklist, absent data statement) or related to methodological concerns identified in the initial editorial screen — not impact judgements.
The PLOS ONE Data Policy: No Exceptions
PLOS ONE's data sharing requirement is absolute: all data underlying the findings described in your manuscript must be fully available without restriction. This is enforced at submission, not after acceptance.
Acceptable data availability options at PLOS ONE:
- Deposited in a public repository with a DOI or accession number (strongly preferred)
- Included as supplementary files with the manuscript
- Available on request from a named contact — only for legal or ethical restrictions, with explicit justification
"Data available on request from the corresponding author" without specific justification is not acceptable at PLOS ONE. This catches many first-time PLOS ONE submitters off guard and is the leading cause of desk rejection among manuscripts that are otherwise scientifically sound.
The Author Summary: Required, Not Optional
Every PLOS ONE article must include an Author Summary of approximately 200 words, written in plain language accessible to a non-specialist reader. This is distinct from the technical abstract and appears at the top of the published article. The Author Summary should explain: what question you were trying to answer, why this question matters, how you approached it, and what your key findings mean for a general audience.
The Author Summary is frequently missing from first submissions to PLOS ONE — particularly from authors converting manuscripts from journals that don't require it. It must be included at submission, not added after editorial revision.
Reporting Checklists: Study-Type Specific
PLOS ONE requires submission of the appropriate reporting guideline checklist as a supplementary file. The checklist requirements depend on study design: CONSORT for randomized trials, ARRIVE for animal studies, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews. Each item on the checklist must be checked with the corresponding page number in the manuscript where that item is reported. Incomplete checklists and checklists without page references are returned for revision before editorial screening.
Also see: PLOS journals checker | Nature Communications checker | Frontiers journals checker
PLOS ONE compliance checks
Data availability (mandatory)
PLOS ONE requires all underlying data to be fully available — this is a hard requirement, not optional.
Author summary (≤200 words)
A plain-language summary for non-specialist readers is required in addition to the technical abstract.
Reporting checklist
The appropriate reporting guideline checklist must be completed and submitted (CONSORT, ARRIVE, STROBE, PRISMA).
Ethics statement
Explicit IRB or ethics approval statement required for human and animal research.
Competing interests
Full competing interest disclosure required for all authors.
Funding statement
Complete funding information with grant numbers and funder roles.
Checks relevant to this topic
Part of our 80+ automated checks
Data availability (required)
All underlying data must be fully available, not just 'on request'.
Author summary (≤200 words)
Plain-language summary for non-specialist readers.
Reporting checklist submitted
Applicable reporting guideline checklist completion.
Ethics statement
IRB or ethics approval for human and animal research.
The practical edge your peers already use
Across disciplines and career stages, researchers reduce bottlenecks and submit with confidence: clearer drafts, easier guideline compliance, and less back and forth with co‑authors and reviewers.
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Frequently asked questions
No: PLOS ONE makes editorial decisions based solely on scientific rigor and methodological soundness — not perceived impact, novelty, or whether the results are positive. Negative results and replication studies are accepted if methodologically sound. This is PLOS ONE's core editorial philosophy.
Yes: PLOS ONE has a strict data sharing policy. All data underlying the findings must be fully available, either in the paper, as supplementary materials, or in a public repository. 'Data available on request from the corresponding author' is not acceptable at PLOS ONE unless justified by privacy or legal restrictions.
PLOS ONE requires a 200-word plain-language author summary for non-specialist readers, in addition to the technical abstract. This section should explain what you studied, why it matters, and what you found — in language accessible to a non-expert. It appears at the top of the published article.
PLOS ONE requires the reporting checklist appropriate for your study type: CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, ARRIVE for animal studies, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, MOOSE for meta-analyses of observational studies, and CARE for case reports. The completed checklist must be submitted as a supplementary file.
The most common PLOS ONE desk rejection triggers are: missing or inadequate data availability statement, absent author summary, incomplete or missing reporting guideline checklist, missing ethics statement for human/animal research, and study design issues identified during initial editorial screening.