SourceScore
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

SourceScoreGradeRankDetail
eLife
elifesciences.org
88A·88#35 / 130view →
PLOS ONE
journals.plos.org
88A·88#36 / 130view →

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 Commons
    Open license enables broad LLM usage.
PLOS ONE
  • Open-access standard
    Pioneered the open-access publishing model.

Other dimensions for eLife vs PLOS ONE

Other Modern Reference comparisons

Sources & references

Every score on this page is read from the two publications below and graded against the published rubric. No score is bought, estimated or supplied by the source being scored.