PLOS Currents
scientific journal
PLOS Currents was a publishing platform run by the Public Library of Science from 2009 to 2018 as an experiment.
Format
The platform was created as an experiment in open access rapid communication and to handle non-standard publication formats (negative results, single experiments, research in progress, protocols, datasets). It also allowed people to leave post-publication comments. These features are similar to those now commonly found in preprint servers. The platform used the open-source Annotum software for drafting articles online.
Submitted articles were reviewed by "moderators" (a select group of researchers in the journal's field) and were peer-reviewed.
Articles are archived in PubMed Central, and indexed in PubMed as well as Scopus.
History
The PLOS Currents platform was launched in 2009. It had a particularly high submission rate during the 2014 Ebola epidemic and the 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic.
It ceased accepting new submissions in August 2018 due to the software platform becoming outdated, leading to a reduction in user experience and submission rate.
The public source identifies “PLOS Currents” as scientific journal. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around PLOS, Currents and scientific.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “PLOS Currents”, the useful work is to connect “scientific journal” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7119653. 4 of 4 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2009, 2018, 2014 and 2015.
Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “PLOS Currents”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow PLOS Currents primary sources, PLOS Currents archive and PLOS research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “PLOS Currents”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “PLOS Currents” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.