Actually, I would like to retract my ‘I do not think they necessarily stand out as a qualitative journal publisher per se because, as they have stated themselves: they are not explicitly looking for significant/original papers.’ statement. I was erroneously lumping PLoS ONE together with all the other PLoS journals (and their peer review/publishing policies), which is incorrect. PLoS ONE is the only PLoS journal that applies this peer review model, while the other PLoS journals also make an assessment of a research’s significance.

But considering PLoS’ success is mostly, if not almost entirely, based on the other journals, I would question the success/attention that PLoS ONE has received even more.