eLife vs PLOS ONE — Discipline
How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.
eLife outscores PLOS ONE on Citation Discipline by 6 points (A · 90 vs B · 84).
eLife
Transparent peer-review (reviewer notes published); preprint-first model since 2022.
PLOS ONE
Peer-review checks methodology + ethics; novelty + significance left to readers; corrections public.
Global rank · Discipline
Why these Discipline scores
Transparent peer-review (reviewer notes published); preprint-first model since 2022.
Peer-review checks methodology + ethics; novelty + significance left to readers; corrections public.
Signals behind the Discipline score
- Public peer reviewReviewer comments + author responses published with article.
- PLOS editorialMethodological-soundness model rather than novelty filter.
Other dimensions for eLife vs PLOS ONE
Other Discipline comparisons
Sources & references
Every score on this page is read from the two publications below and graded against the published rubric. No score is bought, estimated or supplied by the source being scored.
- Source evaluated — eLife (elifesciences.org) · verified · full scoring record
- Source evaluated — PLOS ONE (journals.plos.org) · verified · full scoring record
- Scoring rubric — SourceScore Index, Citation Discipline, Modern Reference, Citation Velocity (methodology v0.1)
- Machine-readable record — /api/compare/elife-vs-plos-one/discipline.json