About a year ago I wrote a blog post here about becoming the chair of the Advisory Board of PLOS Biology (see From Academic Editor in Chief to Chair of the Advisory Board: figuring out an official role for me (Jonathan Eisen) at PLoS Biology). One of my main tasks since then involved advising PLOS Biology on the need to improve the diversity of Academic Editors and Advisory Board members. Just to be clear – I do not work at PLOS Biology – I have a role in chairing the recently created and as of yet not heavily used Advisory Board. So I figured – I would see how the people who run PLOS Biology would respond to advice. And at least in this instance (the diversity issue) they responded very well.

So – I guess the next step is to get the Advisory Board as a group to start – well – giving advice. And to see how PLOS Biology responds to said advice. Over the next two days I will be talking to some of the Advisory Board members about PLOS Biology and what roles the Advisory Board might play. Now personally I have a lot of ideas about the directions I would like to see PLOS Biology go in the future. But I am going to hold off on my personal ideas for now since I would like to solicit input from the community to see what ideas others have about the future of PLOS Biology.

So – here are some questions to hopefully start to stimulate a discussion.

What do you think PLOS Biology should focus on over the next five years?

What would you like to see PLOS Biology do that it is not doing now?

What would you like to see PLOS Biology NOT do that it is doing now?

What things is PLOS Biology doing now but should be improved upon?

What role do you think PLOS Biology could and should play in the “open access” movement?

What other questions should we be asking here?

I am hoping that I / we / you can engage the community in a discussion about the future of PLOS Biology … and would very much like any input here or elsewhere on where you think PLOS Biology should go.