Earlier this year, PLoS sent out a series of surveys to authors whose work was considered by our journals in 2008. We wanted to find out what authors think about all aspects of our services – from submission and peer review, through to publication and the functionality of the PLoS journal web sites.

PLoS is getting ready for this year's ASTMH meeting [9](Washington, D. C., November 18–22), where you’ll find us at Booth 501 [10] in the exhibition hall.

This month’s editorial [14] in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases introduces Serap Aksoy [15], who steps up as Editor-in-Chief alongside Peter Hotez [16]. Together they examine the articles being submitted to the journal, and the different ways in which the impact and quality of the journal can be measured.

In 2009, in this online world, how do most scientists and medics find the articles they need to read? The answer for the content published by PLoS (and no doubt by many other publishers) is via one of the now ubiquitous search engines, be it one that only searches the scientific literature, or more likely, one that searches the entire web. Given that readers tend to navigate directly to the articles that are relevant to them, regardless of the journal they were published in, why then do researchers and their paymasters remain wedded to assessing individual articles by using a metric (the impact factor) that attempts to measure the average citations to a whole journal? We’d argue that it’s primarily because there has been no strong alternative. But now alternatives are beginning to emerge.

A Review article [27] published today in PLoS Computational Biology [28] describes the process of semantically enhancing a research article to enrich content, providing a striking example of how open-access content can be re-used and how scientific articles might take much greater advantage of the online medium in future.