 The PLOS business model has been criticized, for example, by journalist Richard Poynder, who posited in 2011 that journals such as "PLOS One" that charge for publication rather than charging users for access may produce a conflict of interest that reduces peer review standards (accept more articles, earn more revenue).Stevan Harnad argued instead for a "no fault" peer-review model, in which authors are charged for each round of peer review, regardless of the outcome, rather than for publication.In 2016, Jeffrey Beall described "PLOS One" as a scientific spammer.