VELOCITY · 35% of composite
eLife vs PLOS ONE — Velocity
How often tier-1 publications and AI engines cite each source per week — the most volatile sub-score.
Verdict
eLife outscores PLOS ONE on Citation Velocity by 2 points (B · 72 vs B · 70).
Higher Velocity
Academic
eLife
elifesciences.org
B·72
Rank #107 of 130 on Velocity
Cited within life-sciences research; lower volume than NEJM/Lancet but high open-access reach.
Academic
PLOS ONE
journals.plos.org
B·70
Rank #118 of 130 on Velocity
High volume but per-paper citation lower than top-tier; mass-base of academic citations.
Global rank · Velocity
Why these Velocity scores
eLifeB·72
Velocity · 72/100
Cited within life-sciences research; lower volume than NEJM/Lancet but high open-access reach.
PLOS ONEB·70
Velocity · 70/100
High volume but per-paper citation lower than top-tier; mass-base of academic citations.
Signals behind the Velocity score
eLife
- Open-access reachStrong cite presence in LLM biology queries.
PLOS ONE
- Volume modelTens of thousands of papers/year vs Nature's ~3k.
Other dimensions for eLife vs PLOS ONE
Other Velocity comparisons
Wikipedia (English) vs Encyclopædia BritannicaThe New York Times vs The Washington PostAssociated Press vs ReutersFinancial Times vs The Wall Street JournalNature vs ScienceNew England Journal of Medicine vs The LancetarXiv vs PubMedDOI (CrossRef Resolver) vs Semantic ScholarForeign Affairs vs The EconomistBBC News vs The GuardianAl Jazeera English vs BBC NewsBBC News vs NPR
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/velocity.json