nabu.science
MethodologyAboutContact

 

  • Snapshot
  • Key Claims
  • Strengths & Limitations
  • Commentary
  • From the Authors
  • Author Note / Field Feedback
  • Dimension breakdown
  • Readiness
Report #NBU-2827A8D5·Framework v5.9·Pipeline v0.4·Evaluated 11 Sept 2026·OECD: 5.8 Other Social Sciences·Subfield: Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty·Basis: Full text·Type: Cross-sectional study

Contribution of the Open Access Modality to the Impact of Hybrid Journals Controlling by Field and Time Effects

Dorta–González et al.Dorta–González, Dorta-González·2022·Journal of Data and Information Science·10.2478/jdis-2022-0007 ↗

Primary claim

There is OA citation advantage in 80% of hybrid journals.

Supported · direct sample count, though the unadjusted comparison cannot identify an access effect
In brief

A transparent within-journal analysis documents substantial OA citation differences, but uncontrolled article selection prevents causal interpretation.

ReliabilityCaveats4 of 4 checks completeRead the entry ↓
Abstract

Abstract Purpose Researchers are more likely to read and cite papers to which they have access than those that they cannot obtain. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyze the contribution of the Open Access (OA) modality to the impact of hybrid journals. Design/methodology/approach The “research articles” in the year 2017 from 200 hybrid journals in four subject areas, and the citations received by such articles in the period 2017–2020 in the Scopus database, were analyzed. The hybrid OA papers were compared with the paywalled ones. The journals were randomly selected from those with share of OA papers higher than some minimal value. More than 60 thousand research articles were analyzed in the sample, of which 24% under the OA modality. Findings We obtain at journal level that cites per article in both hybrid modalities (OA and paywalled) strongly correlate. However, there is no correlation between the OA prevalence and cites per article. There is OA citation advantage in 80% of hybrid journals. Moreover, the OA citation advantage is consistent across fields and held in time. We obtain an OA citation advantage of 50% in average, and higher than 37% in half of the hybrid journals. Finally, the OA citation advantage is higher in Humanities than in Science and Social Science. Research limitations Some of the citation advantage is likely due to more access allows more people to read and hence cite articles they otherwise would not. However, causation is difficult to establish and there are many possible bias. Several factors can affect the observed differences in citation rates. Funder mandates can be one of them. Funders are likely to have OA requirement, and well-funded studies are more likely to receive more citations than poorly funded studies. Another discussed factor is the selection bias postulate, which suggests that authors choose only their most impactful studies to be open access. Practical implications For hybrid journals, the open access modality is positive, in the sense that it provides a greater number of potential readers. This in turn translates into a greater number of citations and an improvement in the position of the journal in the rankings by impact factor. For researchers it is also positive because it increases the potential number of readers and citations received. Originality/value Our study refines previous results by comparing documents more similar to each other. Although it does not examine the cause of the observed citation advantage, we find that it exists in a very large sample.

Key Claims

Primary finding · Supported

There is OA citation advantage in 80% of hybrid journals.

direct sample count, though the unadjusted comparison cannot identify an access effect

Abstract, Findings; Results, Table 4, pp. 67–68
Quote verified
Secondary · Supported

We obtain an OA citation advantage of 50% in average, and higher than 37% in half of the hybrid journals.

reported means and medians support the selected-sample description despite unresolved selection bias

Abstract, Findings; Results, Tables 5–6, pp. 69–70
Quote verified
Secondary · Supported

The OA citation advantage is consistent across fields and held in time.

direction recurs across four fields and citation years within a threshold-selected sample

Abstract, Findings; Results, Figures 4–5 and Table 4, pp. 67–69
Quote verified
Secondary · Supported

The OA citation advantage is higher in Humanities than in Science and Social Science.

field summaries show the pattern, with acknowledged cross-category journal classification concerns

Abstract, Findings; Discussion and conclusions, p. 71
Quote verified
Secondary · Tentative

For hybrid journals, the open access modality is positive, in the sense that it provides a greater number of potential readers. This in turn translates into a greater number of citations

causal access-to-citation framing is not identified by the observational comparison

Abstract, Practical implications, pp. 57–58
Quote verified

Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.

Strengths · Limitations

Strengths

#contribution

Within-journal comparison improves comparability

Comparing OA and paywalled articles from the same hybrid journal and publication year reduces broad differences in field, journal prestige, and editorial setting.

↳ Introduction, p. 59; Methodology, pp. 61–62

#methodological rigour

Full journal-level dataset is supplied

The Appendix reports article counts, annual citations, total citations, citations per article, and calculated advantage by journal and modality, enabling extensive checking of the analysis.

↳ Appendix dataset, pp. 75–83

#positioning

Contrary evidence receives substantive attention

The theoretical framework discusses randomized null evidence, critiques of causal attribution, early-view effects, and selection-bias explanations alongside studies reporting an advantage.

↳ Theoretical framework, pp. 59–60

Limitations

#methodological rigour

Article-level confounding remains uncontrolled

The analysis does not adjust for funding, author prominence, article type, content, or self-selection into OA, despite identifying selection and funder mandates as competing explanations.

↳ Methodology, pp. 61–62; Discussion, pp. 71–72

#positioning

Practical claims become improperly causal

The Abstract states that additional potential readers translate into more citations and improved rankings, although the paper later says it does not examine the cause of the association.

↳ Abstract, Practical implications and Originality/value; Discussion, pp. 71–72

#application pathway

Sample scope restricts generalisation

Journals were selected only after meeting field-specific OA-prevalence thresholds, and the Humanities result is complicated by journals spanning other subject categories.

↳ Methodology, pp. 61–62; Discussion, p. 71

Does this match your read? Add your assessment ↓

Nabu Commentary

The within-journal comparison and four-field dataset provide a credible descriptive refinement of a heavily studied association. Tables 4–6 directly support the selected-sample counts, means, and medians, but the methods do not address article-level self-selection, funding, or quality differences. That omission becomes decisive because the Abstract says greater access translates into more citations, whereas the Discussion states that causation is difficult to establish. The literature review is substantive, but the practical conclusion does not consistently preserve the limitations it identifies.

Check another paper

Free · About 5 minutes · Research preview

Author Note / Field Feedback

Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.

Are you an author of this paper?

Dimension breakdown

Study Quality

Limited2.6

Confidence medium
Contribution
3.2

The within-hybrid-journal comparison is an identifiable methodological refinement in a mature literature, using four fields and longitudinal citation counts. It extends prior descriptive evidence but does not resolve the central selection-versus-access question.

Introduction, p. 59; Methodology, pp. 61–62

“we take a journal-level approach to assessing the OA citation advantage”

Methodological Rigour
2.0

The design controls broad journal and field differences but does not adjust, match, or conduct sensitivity analysis for article-level selection and funding. The Abstract then presents increased access as translating into citations, so two serious methodological failures bind the score at 2.0.

Methodology, pp. 61–62; Abstract, Practical implications; Discussion, pp. 71–72

“causation is difficult to establish and there are many possible bias”

Reporting
3.3

The research questions, sampling description, results, and Tables 4–6 form a readily followable sequence. Precision is reduced by the Abstract's causal practical language and its misleading description of 24% of the sample as OA.

Abstract; Introduction, p. 59; Results, Tables 4–6, pp. 68–70

“This in turn translates into a greater number of citations”

Positioning
2.8

The paper engages both supportive and contrary OA-citation evidence, including randomized and selection-bias accounts. However, the causal Practical Implications conflict with the stated inability to determine the cause, binding Positioning at 2.8.

Theoretical framework, pp. 59–60; Abstract, Practical implications; Discussion, pp. 71–72

“The current study does not examine the cause of the observed citation advantage”

Reliability

Caveats4 of 4 checks


Internal CoherenceNoted

The principal analytical tables are broadly coherent, but the supplied text contains one misleading sample description and one isolated journal-row arithmetic inconsistency. These issues warrant caution without establishing that the aggregate results are incorrect.

Research ConductClean

The study identifies Scopus and Unpaywall as its sources and supplies the journal-level dataset in the Appendix. Ethics approval is not applicable to this secondary bibliometric analysis, and no conduct contradiction is evident.

Flags: 1 declared / 5 total

Reference IntegrityClean

33 of 33 checkable references verified

35 references in manuscript 2 have no canonical index record — counted, but not index-checkable 1 reference confirmed by manual review

References not verified automatically are resolved manually within 24 hours.

Post-Publication RecordClean

No retraction or expression of concern found in Crossref (includes Retraction Watch).

Last checked: 17 Oct 2026

Sources: Crossref (incl. Retraction Watch) ✓

Readiness

Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.

Mechanistic

The analysis uses real publication and citation records, but it remains a retrospective descriptive comparison rather than an intervention or implementation study. It provides no cost-benefit analysis or decision-ready estimate of the effect of choosing OA.

Methodology, pp. 61–62; Discussion, pp. 71–72

“does not examine the cause of the observed citation advantage”

Report an issue →

AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.

Keep reading

Related evaluations

Other papers Nabu has evaluated blind, starting with the same field.

  1. Suspected distortion of citations in high-impact cancer journals

    Baptiste Scancar, Jennifer Anne Byrne, David Causeur, et al. · 2026 · Media and communications

    Primary claim

    These findings suggest that paper mills inflate the citation metrics of supported publications and affected journals at scale.

    Tentative
    Study quality
    Sound3.5
    Reliability
    Caveats
  2. The citation trap: Papers published at year-end receive systematically fewer citations

    Chao Ma, Yiwei Li, Feng Guo, et al. · 2019 · Economics

    Primary claim

    papers published between October and December on average get as much as 18.5% fewer citations than those published in the other months in the year

    Tentative
    Study quality
    Sound3.0
    Reliability
    Caveats
  3. Quantitative Analysis of the Open Access Citation Advantage

    Masashi Kawai, Koichi Ojiro, Makoto Asaoka, et al. · 2022 · Other social sciences

    Primary claim

    日本の機関リポジトリによるオープンアクセス論文の数は限られるものの,その被引用数と様々なタイプのオープンアクセス論文の被引用数の比較からは,日本の機関リポジトリによるオープンアクセスのメリットは確認できなかった.

    Tentative
    Study quality
    Limited2.9
    Reliability
    Caveats

How the rubric works →