--- name: plos-biology description: Use when targeting PLOS Biology (PLOS Biol) or deciding whether a general biology manuscript fits this open-access venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, transparency culture, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # PLOS Biology (plos-biology) ## Journal positioning PLOS Biology is the flagship journal of the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and one of the most prominent fully open-access journals in general biology. It publishes significant, rigorous advances across the biological sciences — from cell and molecular biology to ecology, evolution, neuroscience, and systems biology — judged on scientific rigor and completeness, with a strong editorial culture around data sharing, reporting transparency, and methods reproducibility. The readership is the broad biological research community, and the journal's open-access mandate means papers are accessible worldwide without institutional subscription. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on journals.plos.org/plosbiology. ## When to trigger - The author names PLOS Biology or PLOS Biol as the target venue. - A manuscript has clear biological significance but benefits from an open-access outlet with strong transparency and data-sharing norms. - A manuscript spans multiple biological disciplines or uses computational/quantitative methods alongside experimental data. - The author needs PLOS Biology's desk-reject risks, reporting-guideline expectations, and a credible routing alternative. ## Scope & topic fit - Cell and molecular biology, genetics, genomics, and systems biology with clear mechanistic or conceptual insight. - Evolutionary biology, ecology, and organismal biology — PLOS Biology publishes both fundamental and quantitative ecological work. - Neuroscience and computational neuroscience at the level of significant biological insight. - Methods and resources are published when the new tool, dataset, or approach offers clear and broadly applicable biological utility. - Interdisciplinary work bridging quantitative/computational approaches with experimental biology is well-suited. - Community-page and primer articles (invited or commissioned) complement research articles — these are not the route for unsolicited reviews. ## Method & evidence bar - Significance bar is high: a paper must represent a substantial advance in understanding, not merely an incremental addition to an existing paradigm. - Data availability is non-negotiable: underlying data for all figures must be deposited in a public repository or provided as supporting files; PLOS enforces this at acceptance. - Reporting guidelines must be applied: ARRIVE for animal studies, CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies, MIQE for qPCR — a checklist submission is expected. - Statistical reporting: PLOS Biology actively recommends against sole reliance on p < 0.05 thresholds; effect sizes, confidence intervals, and sample-size justifications are expected. - Code and computational pipelines must be made publicly available; scripts and analysis code deposited in Zenodo, GitHub, or equivalent. ## Structure & house style - Research articles use a standard IMRAD structure with an unstructured abstract; a separate Author Summary (plain-language summary; re-check the current length limit) is required — this is PLOS Biology-specific and distinct from the abstract. - The Author Summary must be written for a scientifically literate non-specialist audience; it is published prominently alongside the article. - Figure panels must be accompanied by underlying data ("source data files") for all quantitative displays. - Supporting information (supplemental figures, tables, methods) is hosted alongside the paper under the same open-access license. - PLOS Biology uses a transparent editing process where editors' decisions and reviewers' identities (if they consent) can be published. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "PLOS Biology submission guidelines" and follow the current version at journals.plos.org/plosbiology. - Re-check required reporting checklists (ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE, or equivalent) and confirm all applicable guidelines have been completed and attached. - Confirm data availability statement and deposition: all primary data underlying figures must be accessible; deposition in an approved repository (Zenodo, Dryad, GEO, SRA, etc.) is expected. - Re-check code availability: all analysis scripts, pipelines, and software must be publicly available with an appropriate open-source license. - Verify Author Summary requirements and format; confirm article processing charge (APC) or fee-waiver eligibility under current PLOS policy. - Check competing-interests, funding acknowledgment, AI-use disclosure, and preprint posting policy (PLOS actively supports preprints). - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence articulating why this paper advances biological understanding for the broad PLOS Biology readership, not only for specialists in one subfield. - [ ] The Author Summary is drafted (plain language; re-check the current length limit) for a non-specialist audience. - [ ] All primary data are deposited or ready for deposition; source data files are prepared for each quantitative figure. - [ ] Applicable reporting guidelines (ARRIVE, CONSORT, etc.) have been completed and the checklist is ready to attach. - [ ] Code and computational workflows are in a public repository with documentation sufficient for reproduction. ## Common desk-reject triggers - Insufficient significance: incremental advances that refine an established finding without conceptual or mechanistic novelty. - Missing or incomplete data availability — PLOS Biology editorial staff check for deposited data or source files at submission; absence is a desk-reject risk. - Reporting checklist absent or incomplete for animal/human/clinical studies. - Manuscripts framed as clinical research without appropriate reporting compliance (CONSORT, trial registration). - Reviews or opinion pieces submitted as unsolicited manuscripts — PLOS Biology does not publish unsolicited narrative reviews. ## Re-routing decision - Flagship-level conceptual advance → `nature`, `science`, `cell`, or `pnas`. - Prefer eLife's Reviewed-Preprint model and public reviews → `elife`. - Genomics and computational biology are the primary focus → `genome-biology`. - Clinical/translational emphasis → `plos-medicine` or `nature-medicine`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] PLOS Biology [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```