← Back to home

PLOS Computational Biology

Alright. Let's dissect this. You want me to take a dry, academic entry and… inject it with something. Life? Sarcasm? A general sense of existential ennui? Fine. But don't expect me to enjoy it. And don't mistake my meticulousness for enthusiasm.

PLOS Computational Biology

PLOS Computational Biology is a monthly peer-reviewed open access scientific journal. It’s the kind of publication that exists somewhere between the sterile precision of computational biology and the messy, often infuriating, reality of actual research. It covers the intersection of these two fields, which, let's be honest, is probably where all the interesting, albeit deeply unsettling, discoveries are made. Think of it as the slightly more fashionable, less stuffy cousin of pure bioinformatics.

  • Discipline: Computational biology, bioinformatics. Because apparently, we need to categorize everything, even the digital ghosts of biological processes.

  • Language: English. Because of course it is.

  • Edited by: Feilim Mac Gabhann and Virginia Pitzer. I assume they have their reasons.

  • Publication Details:

    • History: 2005–present. It’s been around long enough to see trends come and go, and probably to regret some of the early decisions made in its name.
    • Publisher: Public Library of Science. A noble endeavor, I suppose, though I suspect even they have their moments of doubt.
    • Frequency: Monthly. Like a recurring, slightly inconvenient, obligation.
    • Open access: Yes. Because knowledge should be free, apparently. Which is a lovely sentiment, until you consider the cost of actually producing that knowledge.
    • License: Creative Commons Attribution License. So, feel free to use it, but don't forget who scratched it out.
    • Impact factor: 3.6 (2024). Enough to be noticed, not enough to be truly influential. A perpetual state of almost.
    • Standard abbreviations:
      • ISO 4 (alt): PLOS Comput. Biol.
      • Bluebook (alt):
      • NLM (alt):
      • MathSciNet (alt):
      • CODEN (alt): PCBLBG
      • ISSN: 1553-734X (print), 1553-7358 (web). The digital footprint of its existence.
      • LCCN: 2004216490
      • OCLC no.: 57176662

  • Links:

    • Journal homepage - Go ahead, stare into the abyss.
    • Online access - Where the digital detritus of discovery resides.
    • Online archive - Because the past is always with us, whether we like it or not.

Format

The journal publishes original research and review articles. They claim it's all open access, under the benevolent gaze of the Creative Commons Attribution License. It's a nice thought, really. Like a shared dream of scientific progress, before reality inevitably intervenes.

Since its inception in 2005, alongside its more established siblings, PLOS Biology and PLOS Medicine, it's been churning out content. The founding editor-in-chief was Philip Bourne, a name that probably carries more weight in certain circles than I’d care to contemplate. Now, Feilim Mac Gabhann and Jason Papin are at the helm, navigating the choppy waters of academic publishing.

One of the more… distinctive features is the "Ten Simple Rules" series. Practical guides, they call them. I call them the literary equivalent of a grimace disguised as advice. They've become surprisingly popular. Apparently, people do want simple rules for complex, often intractable, problems. How quaint.

This series then spawned "Quick Tips," which, as the name suggests, offer recommendations on computational practices and methods. Think dimensionality reduction – because sometimes, the only way to deal with overwhelming data is to pretend it's less overwhelming than it is.

Then, in 2012, they really pushed the boundaries of what a journal is by launching the "Topic Page" review format. This isn't just publishing in a journal; it's a dual-publishing effort, spilling over onto Wikipedia. It was the first publication of its kind to do this. A bold move, or perhaps a desperate attempt to be relevant. It certainly makes you wonder about the true nature of collaboration, or perhaps just the desperate need for more eyeballs on the content. It’s like they’re trying to embed themselves into the very fabric of information, whether it wants them there or not.

See also

  • PLOS - The parent organization. The mothership.
  • PLOS Biology - The older sibling. Probably got all the attention.
  • BMC Bioinformatics - A competitor. Because the world needs more journals dissecting the same digital entrails.