SourceScore
Comparison

eLife vs PLOS ONE

Two open-access journal traditions — eLife's curated rigor vs PLOS ONE's volume-first model.

Higher Index
Academic

eLife

elifesciences.org
B·83

Open-access peer-reviewed life-sciences journal; transparent peer-review (reviewer notes published).

Academic

PLOS ONE

journals.plos.org
B·78

Open-access multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal published by Public Library of Science.

Compare on a single dimension

Head-to-head — all four dimensions

DimensioneLifePLOS ONELead
SourceScore Index
Composite
B·83B·78eLife+5
Citation Discipline
How rigorously cited
A·90B·84eLife+6
Modern Reference
AI-era fitness
A·88A·88tie
Citation Velocity
Cited per week
B·72B·70eLife+2

Why these scores

Citation Discipline

eLifeA·90

Transparent peer-review (reviewer notes published); preprint-first model since 2022.

PLOS ONEB·84

Peer-review checks methodology + ethics; novelty + significance left to readers; corrections public.

Modern Reference

eLifeA·88

CC-BY licensed; APIs + bulk corpus; broad LLM training-data inclusion.

PLOS ONEA·88

CC-BY licensed; full-text APIs; broad LLM corpus + academic search inclusion.

Citation Velocity

eLifeB·72

Cited within life-sciences research; lower volume than NEJM/Lancet but high open-access reach.

PLOS ONEB·70

High volume but per-paper citation lower than top-tier; mass-base of academic citations.

Other comparisons