Example of PLOS Medicine format
Recent searches

Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format Example of PLOS Medicine format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access ISSN: 15491277 e-ISSN: 15491676
recommended Recommended

PLOS Medicine — Template for authors

Publisher: PLOS
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Medicine (all) #15 of 793 down down by 7 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
High
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 1027 Published Papers | 14245 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 19/07/2020
Insights & related journals
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Journal Performance & Insights

  • Impact Factor
  • CiteRatio
  • SJR
  • SNIP

Impact factor determines the importance of a journal by taking a measure of frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year.

10.5

5% from 2018

Impact factor for PLOS Medicine from 2016 - 2019
Year Value
2019 10.5
2018 11.048
2017 11.675
2016 11.862
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • Impact factor of this journal has decreased by 5% in last year.
  • This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.

CiteRatio is a measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

13.9

10% from 2019

CiteRatio for PLOS Medicine from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 13.9
2019 15.5
2018 15.5
2017 14.1
2016 16.8
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has decreased by 10% in last years.
  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

4.847

14% from 2019

SJR for PLOS Medicine from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 4.847
2019 5.616
2018 6.626
2017 5.914
2016 6.419
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has decreased by 14% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

3.69

1% from 2019

SNIP for PLOS Medicine from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 3.69
2019 3.669
2018 3.503
2017 3.352
2016 3.875
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 1% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Related Journals

open access Open Access ISSN: 13561820 e-ISSN: 14699567

Taylor and Francis

CiteRatio: 2.8 | SJR: 0.806 | SNIP: 1.28
open access Open Access e-ISSN: 21971714

Springer

CiteRatio: 3.1 | SJR: 0.859 | SNIP: 1.433
open access Open Access ISSN: 14745151

SAGE

CiteRatio: 4.5 | SJR: 0.914 | SNIP: 1.191
open access Open Access ISSN: 20474873 e-ISSN: 20474881
recommended Recommended

SAGE

CiteRatio: 8.6 | SJR: 1.669 | SNIP: 1.889

PLOS Medicine

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

PLOS

PLOS Medicine

PLOS Medicine gives the highest priority to papers on the conditions and risk factors that cause the greatest losses in years of healthy life worldwide. For a guide to the conditions and risk factors that we prioritize, see Tables 1.1 and 1.2 of Global Burden of Disease and Ri...... Read More

Clinical evidence

i
Last updated on
19 Jul 2020
i
ISSN
1549-1676
i
Impact Factor
Very High - 3.343
i
Acceptance Rate
15%
i
Open Access
Yes
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Green faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
plos2015
i
Citation Type
Numbered
[25]
i
Bibliography Example
Blonder GE, Tinkham M, Klapwijk TM. Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercurrent conversion. Phys Rev B. 1982;25(7):4515–4532.

Top papers written in this journal

open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1000097
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
David Moher1, David Moher2, Alessandro Liberati3, Jennifer Tetzlaff1, Douglas G. Altman4
21 Jul 2009 - PLOS Medicine

Abstract:

David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Topics:

Systematic review (53%)53% related to the paper
View PDF
53,418 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1000100
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
18 Aug 2009 - PLOS Medicine

Abstract:

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and ot... Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. read more read less

Topics:

Systematic review (62%)62% related to the paper, Meta-analysis (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
22,678 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1016/J.IJSU.2014.07.013
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies
16 Oct 2007 - PLOS Medicine

Abstract:

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be... Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies. read more read less

Topics:

Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (77%)77% related to the paper, Observational Studies as Topic (57%)57% related to the paper, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (56%)56% related to the paper, Observational study (54%)54% related to the paper, Systematic review (52%)52% related to the paper
View PDF
12,675 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.0030442
Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030
Colin Mathers1, Dejan Loncar1
28 Nov 2006 - PLOS Medicine

Abstract:

Background Global and regional projections of mortality and burden of disease by cause for the years 2000, 2010, and 2030 were published by Murray and Lopez in 1996 as part of the Global Burden of Disease project. These projections, which are based on 1990 data, continue to be widely quoted, although they are substantially ou... Background Global and regional projections of mortality and burden of disease by cause for the years 2000, 2010, and 2030 were published by Murray and Lopez in 1996 as part of the Global Burden of Disease project. These projections, which are based on 1990 data, continue to be widely quoted, although they are substantially outdated; in particular, they substantially underestimated the spread of HIV/AIDS. To address the widespread demand for information on likely future trends in global health, and thereby to support international health policy and priority setting, we have prepared new projections of mortality and burden of disease to 2030 starting from World Health Organization estimates of mortality and burden of disease for 2002. This paper describes the methods, assumptions, input data, and results. Methods and Findings Relatively simple models were used to project future health trends under three scenarios—baseline, optimistic, and pessimistic—based largely on projections of economic and social development, and using the historically observed relationships of these with cause-specific mortality rates. Data inputs have been updated to take account of the greater availability of death registration data and the latest available projections for HIV/AIDS, income, human capital, tobacco smoking, body mass index, and other inputs. In all three scenarios there is a dramatic shift in the distribution of deaths from younger to older ages and from communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional causes to noncommunicable disease causes. The risk of death for children younger than 5 y is projected to fall by nearly 50% in the baseline scenario between 2002 and 2030. The proportion of deaths due to noncommunicable disease is projected to rise from 59% in 2002 to 69% in 2030. Global HIV/AIDS deaths are projected to rise from 2.8 million in 2002 to 6.5 million in 2030 under the baseline scenario, which assumes coverage with antiretroviral drugs reaches 80% by 2012. Under the optimistic scenario, which also assumes increased prevention activity, HIV/AIDS deaths are projected to drop to 3.7 million in 2030. Total tobacco-attributable deaths are projected to rise from 5.4 million in 2005 to 6.4 million in 2015 and 8.3 million in 2030 under our baseline scenario. Tobacco is projected to kill 50% more people in 2015 than HIV/AIDS, and to be responsible for 10% of all deaths globally. The three leading causes of burden of disease in 2030 are projected to include HIV/AIDS, unipolar depressive disorders, and ischaemic heart disease in the baseline and pessimistic scenarios. Road traffic accidents are the fourth leading cause in the baseline scenario, and the third leading cause ahead of ischaemic heart disease in the optimistic scenario. Under the baseline scenario, HIV/AIDS becomes the leading cause of burden of disease in middle- and low-income countries by 2015. Conclusions These projections represent a set of three visions of the future for population health, based on certain explicit assumptions. Despite the wide uncertainty ranges around future projections, they enable us to appreciate better the implications for health and health policy of currently observed trends, and the likely impact of fairly certain future trends, such as the ageing of the population, the continued spread of HIV/AIDS in many regions, and the continuation of the epidemiological transition in developing countries. The results depend strongly on the assumption that future mortality trends in poor countries will have a relationship to economic and social development similar to those that have occurred in the higher-income countries. read more read less

Topics:

Mortality rate (54%)54% related to the paper, Global health (53%)53% related to the paper, Population (52%)52% related to the paper, Poison control (52%)52% related to the paper, Population health (52%)52% related to the paper
View PDF
9,148 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1000251
CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials
Kenneth F. Schulz1, Douglas G. Altman2, David Moher3
24 Mar 2010 - PLOS Medicine

Abstract:

Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience. read more read less

Topics:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (71%)71% related to the paper, Guideline (52%)52% related to the paper
View PDF
4,133 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for PLOS Medicine.

It automatically formats your research paper to PLOS formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

PLOS Medicine format uses plos2015 citation style.

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

Absolutely not! With our tool, you can freely write without having to focus on LaTeX. You can write your entire paper as per the PLOS Medicine guidelines and autoformat it.

Yes. The template is fully compliant as per the guidelines of this journal. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. Also, if there's any update in the journal format guidelines, we take care of it and include that in our algorithm.

Sure. We support all the top citation styles like APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, Chicago style, etc. For example, in case of this journal, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, it will automatically update your article as per the PLOS Medicine citation style.

You can avail our Free Trial for 7 days. I'm sure you'll find our features very helpful. Plus, it's quite inexpensive.

Yup. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word doc and click on auto-format. You'll have a publish-ready paper that you can download at the end.

A matter of seconds. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves a load of your time in writing and formating your manuscript.

One little Google search can get you the Word template for any journal. However, why do you need a Word template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace, autoformat it as per PLOS Medicine's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Try us out!.

Absolutely! You can do it using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, you can always contact our support team.

SciSpace is an online tool for now. We'll soon release a desktop version. You can also request (or upvote) any feature that you think might be helpful for you and the research community in the feature request section once you sign-up with us.

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it up and running within a matter of 3 working days. You can find the request box in the Journal Gallery on the right sidebar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for?".

After you have written and autoformatted your paper, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx and LaTeX.

To be honest, the answer is NO. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of those factors the review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, Eigenfactor, etc. You must assess all the factors and then take the final call.

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We have extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help our researchers understand the access level of this journal. The following table indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

Our journal submission experts are skilled in submitting papers to various international journals.

After uploading your paper on SciSpace, you would see a button to request a journal submission service for PLOS Medicine.

Each submission service is completed within 4 - 5 working days.

Yes. SciSpace provides this functionality.

After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or .bib file.

SciSpace would allow download of your references in PLOS Medicine Endnote style, according to plos guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to PLOS Medicine formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template