Loading evaluation data…
Purpose This research seeks to examine the relationship between the open access availability of journal articles in anthropology and their citation conditions. Design/methodology/approach The paper applies a statistical logistic regression model to explore this relationship, and compares two groups of articles, those published in high‐ranked journals and those in low‐ranked journals based on journal impact factor, to examine the likelihood that open access status is correlated to scholarly impact. Findings The results reveal that open access articles in general receive more citations. Moreover, this research finds that articles in high‐ranked journals do not have a higher open access rate, and articles in lower‐ranked journals have a greater increase rate of citations if they are freely accessible. Originality/value The findings are contrary to the existing theory that a higher citation rate of open access articles is caused by authors posting their best articles online. It is hoped that the research discoveries can help electronic publishers and digital project managers to adjust their strategies in open access advocacy.
The results reveal that open access articles in general receive more citations.
cross-sectional association with uncontrolled confounding and unknown OA timing
Articles in high-ranked journals do not have a higher open access rate.
journal-tier coefficient is non-significant, though the result does not establish equivalence
Articles in lower-ranked journals have a greater increase rate of citations if they are freely accessible.
small lower-tier OA subgroup and cross-sectional model cannot identify citation increases after OA
The findings are contrary to the existing theory that a higher citation rate of open access articles is caused by authors posting their best articles online.
journal rank does not identify article-level self-selection or rule out quality-related confounding
Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.
Strengths
The study compares OA and non-OA patterns separately in ten high-ranked and ten low-ranked anthropology journals, producing a defined tier-specific result rather than only repeating the overall OA association.
↳ Methods, pp. 43–45; Table VI
The background discusses studies favoring self-selection, studies rejecting it, a randomized trial reporting no citation advantage, and a critique of that trial.
↳ Background, pp. 41–43
The article reports journal-selection criteria, article exclusions, OA search methods, citation sourcing, and subtraction of self-citations, making the data-collection process readily traceable.
↳ Methods, pp. 43–45
Limitations
The regression includes citation count and journal tier but does not adjust for author prominence, article quality, topic, co-authorship, or other factors that could influence both OA selection and citations.
↳ Methods, p. 45
OA status and citations were collected in early 2010 for articles published in 2007, without determining when each article became freely available. The analysis therefore cannot establish that OA preceded the observed citations.
↳ Methods, pp. 44–45
The displayed equation gives 0.74 rather than Table III’s 0.074, the Table III constant statistics are incompatible, and Table VI’s prose gives an odds ratio inconsistent with its coefficient.
↳ Results, pp. 46–47; Tables III and VI
The high- versus low-ranked journal comparison provides a specific addition to the OA citation literature, but journal rank is an indirect proxy for article quality. The principal methodological constraint is that the cross-sectional model neither controls major article-level confounders nor establishes when OA availability preceded citations. This makes the abstract’s rejection of self-selection and the discussion’s statement that OA “affected” citation frequency stronger than the evidence permits. Broad engagement with competing literature supports the contextual assessment, while the omission of these central identification limits from the limitations section constrains it.
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Are you an author of this paper?
Limited2.5
Confidence highThe high- versus low-ranked journal comparison provides a defined, field-specific addition to the open-access citation literature. Its advance remains narrow because journal rank is only a coarse proxy for paper quality and does not resolve article-level self-selection.
“articles in lower-ranked journals have a greater increase rate of citations if they are freely accessible”
The sample, search procedure, citation source, and regression specification are reported, but the analysis does not control major article- and author-level confounders or establish when OA exposure preceded citations. Point-in-time OA classification and causal interpretation trigger a stacked methodological ceiling.
“The data was collected in early 2010.”
The hypotheses, methods, results, and tables follow a readable sequence. The abstract and discussion nevertheless turn a cross-sectional association into claims that OA affected citations and contradicted self-selection, creating a material language-evidence mismatch.
“OA status has indeed affected the frequency of citations”
The background engages studies supporting and contesting the OA advantage, including null and randomized evidence. The limitations section discusses sample size and scope but omits the central inability to separate OA effects from article-level confounding and reverse temporal ordering.
“This research has its limitations.”
Caveats4 of 4 checks
Several regression quantities are inconsistent between the prose and tables, although the principal tabled citation coefficient and its reported test statistics are mutually consistent. The issues reduce confidence in numerical interpretation without establishing that the main association was fabricated.
The bibliometric study uses published article and citation records and does not require human-subjects approval. No text-visible research-conduct concern was identified, while absent data, code, funding, and conflict statements were treated as era-typical rather than suspicious.
Flags: 0 declared / 5 total
29 of 29 checkable references verified
38 references in manuscript 9 have no canonical index record — counted, but not index-checkable 6 references confirmed by manual review
No retraction notice found in Retraction Watch.
Sources: Retraction Watch ✓
Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.
The work is an observational bibliometric finding rather than an implementation or pilot study. Considerable replication and stronger causal identification would be needed before changing practice.
AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.