I can't seem to get over the disappointment that PLoS ONE meant to me. I read about it way before it was launched, and I couldn't contain my excitement: Finally, a PLoS journal for all fields! I love the PLoS effort (really, I even evangelize and everything), but being a physicist I couldn't publish in it.

However, immediately after the PLoS ONE launch I formed an opinion that I still hold (and hope it's not true): PLoS ONE will fail miserably in all science fields except for medicine and some of biology. And I don't say this because I want to, but if the current strategy of the journal doesn't change, this could also mean failure in even those two fields.

The explanation is very simple and illustrated with my personal example: I had a nice piece of work that I was eager to submit to PLoS one, until I realized that the journal's articles where separated by subject: physics, mathematics, computer science, and...nutrition !?!?! Ophthalmology ?!?!? What is this?

Obviously, it is just a medicine journal where you can publish other stuff if you like. However, none (NONE) of my colleagues will ever come to read something from this journal.

Actually, I find it very demeaning that a journal that "welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline" treats physics in the same footing as dermatology. Why wasn't "Medicine" enough, with sub-categories inside? This cannot be too challenging technologically, and it could obviously be used with other fields as well (optics, relativity, and so on for physics), improving the browsing capabilities of the journal.

I cannot and I will not publish my research in PLoS ONE until this is changed. If not, I will not stop feeling offended and discrediting it until the Journal Information page is changed to reflect the actual scope of PLoS ONE.

I sincerely hope you listen to these comments and truly become a broad scope journal.