MODERN REFERENCE · 30% of composite
eLife vs PLOS ONE — Modern Reference
How fit each source is for citation in modern (LLM-era) writing — machine-readability, schema, freshness signals, AI-corpus presence.
Verdict
eLife and PLOS ONE tie on Modern Citation Reference (A · 88).
Academic
eLife
elifesciences.org
A·88
Rank #35 of 130 on Modern Reference
CC-BY licensed; APIs + bulk corpus; broad LLM training-data inclusion.
Academic
PLOS ONE
journals.plos.org
A·88
Rank #36 of 130 on Modern Reference
CC-BY licensed; full-text APIs; broad LLM corpus + academic search inclusion.
Global rank · Modern Reference
Why these Modern Reference scores
eLifeA·88
Modern Reference · 88/100
CC-BY licensed; APIs + bulk corpus; broad LLM training-data inclusion.
PLOS ONEA·88
Modern Reference · 88/100
CC-BY licensed; full-text APIs; broad LLM corpus + academic search inclusion.
Signals behind the Modern Reference score
eLife
- Creative CommonsOpen license enables broad LLM usage.
PLOS ONE
- Open-access standardPioneered the open-access publishing model.
Other dimensions for eLife vs PLOS ONE
Other Modern Reference comparisons
Wikipedia (English) vs Encyclopædia BritannicaThe New York Times vs The Washington PostAssociated Press vs ReutersFinancial Times vs The Wall Street JournalNature vs ScienceNew England Journal of Medicine vs The LancetarXiv vs PubMedDOI (CrossRef Resolver) vs Semantic ScholarForeign Affairs vs The EconomistBBC News vs The GuardianAl Jazeera English vs BBC NewsBBC News vs NPR