Large field-specific longitudinal evidence base
The analysis covers 109,759 WoS-indexed LIS articles from 2001–2024 and separates results by OA type, period, disciplinary scope, and journal quartile.
↳ Methods, pp. 1736–1738; Tables 4 and 7–9
Abstract
Introduction. This study examines the citation impact of open access (OA) articles in library and information science (LIS). Given limited OA research in LIS compared to other fields, it contributes by examining OA citation advantages over time, journal quartile, OA type, and discipline. Method. Using a dataset of 109,759 LIS journal articles (2001–2024) from WoS, the study classified articles by OA status and type, then applied statistical analyses, including t-tests, ANOVA and time-series analysis. Analysis. Both parametric and nonparametric tests compared citation impacts across OA types, disciplinary scope, publication years, and journal quartiles. Effect sizes were calculated to assess practical relevance. Results. Non-OA articles received slightly more citations (mean 18.83) than OA articles (mean 17.9), though the difference was minimal. Green OA showed the largest citation advantage (28.55 average). OA citation advantages declined from 9.75 citations (2001–2004) to 0.74 (2020–2024). Multi-disciplinary articles fared better than single-discipline articles. Conclusion(s). The study reveals that OA citation advantages in LIS are conditional, varying by OA type, discipline, and period. These findings caution against generalizing the OA citation benefits observed in other fields.
Key Claims
Primary findingSupported
Non-OA articles received slightly more citations (mean 18.83) than OA articles (mean 17.9), though the difference was minimal.
Possible — the claim's weakest requirement is that the effect exists at all. Experimental. Every point below is traceable to a quoted passage, but this forecast has not yet been validated against known replication outcomes.
the reported means and tiny effect agree, but the aggregate comparison is unadjusted for temporal composition and other confounders
Abstract; Results, Tables 2–3
SecondarySupported
Green OA showed the largest citation advantage (28.55 average).
OA-type means and pairwise tests agree, but age, self-selection, and OA-designation error remain uncontrolled
Abstract; Results, Tables 4–6
SecondarySupported
OA citation advantages declined from 9.75 citations (2001–2004) to 0.74 (2020–2024).
period-specific means show the stated decline, although citation exposure is not age-normalised within periods
Abstract; Results, Table 8 and Figure 6
SecondaryTentative
Interdisciplinary articles benefitted more from OA
unadjusted subgroup differences do not establish an OA benefit or formally test the claimed moderation
Conclusion, p. 1748
Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.
Strengths · Limitations
Strengths
Effect sizes temper significance claims
Welch tests are paired with nonparametric checks, and Cohen’s d is used to show that several statistically significant contrasts are practically very small.
↳ Methods, p. 1738; Tables 3, 8, and 9
Aggregate contradiction addressed openly
The paper explicitly contrasts the overall non-OA mean advantage with the within-period OA advantages and explains the weighting and citation-accrual pattern behind them.
↳ Time-series analysis, pp. 1744–1745; Figure 5
Limitations
Central comparisons leave confounding uncontrolled
Separate stratification by period, quartile, and disciplinary scope does not jointly control article age, author and journal characteristics, topic, or self-selection into OA routes.
↳ Methods, pp. 1736–1738; Tables 2 and 4–9
Benefit language exceeds observational design
The Conclusion states that interdisciplinary articles “benefitted more from OA,” although Table 7 reports unadjusted subgroup contrasts and no formal interaction or causal identification.
↳ Table 7, p. 1743; Conclusion, p. 1748
Consequential limitations remain underdeveloped
The paper does not trace its MIS-category caveat, large Library Journal exclusion, JCR restriction, or OA-classification uncertainty through to the affected conclusions.
↳ Methods, pp. 1736–1737; Discussion and Conclusion, pp. 1747–1748
Nabu Commentary
The article makes a genuine descriptive contribution by analysing a large LIS sample across several dimensions that prior field-specific work had not combined. Its statistical reporting is transparent, particularly the use of effect sizes and nonparametric checks alongside mean comparisons. The main constraint is identification: OA groups are compared without joint adjustment for age, journal, author, topic, or self-selection, yet the Discussion and Conclusion sometimes interpret the patterns as benefits or mechanisms. The score also reflects the conflict between Table 8’s significant 2020–2024 result and the Discussion’s statement that statistical validity was ultimately lost.
Check another paper
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 highContribution
3.4
The study adds a large article-level LIS analysis resolved by OA type, disciplinary scope, period, and journal quartile, extending a thin field-specific literature. Its advance remains descriptive and does not explain why the observed differences arise.
Introduction, pp. 1734–1736; Methods, pp. 1736–1738; Tables 4 and 7–9
The study reveals that OA citation advantages in LIS are conditional, varying by OA type, discipline, and period.
Methodological Rigour
2.0
The sample construction, subgroup comparisons, nonparametric checks, and effect sizes are reported transparently. However, the central comparisons do not jointly control article age, journal, author, topic, or OA self-selection, while parts of the interpretation use benefit and mechanism language.
Methods, pp. 1736–1738; Tables 2–9; Discussion and Conclusion, pp. 1747–1748
Interdisciplinary articles benefitted more from OA
Reporting
3.5
The aggregate-versus-period-specific pattern is explicitly identified and explained, and practical effect sizes are distinguished from statistical significance. Reporting is reduced by causal benefit wording and by the statement that significance was ultimately lost despite the significant 2020–2024 result.
Time-series analysis, pp. 1744–1745; Discussion and Conclusion, pp. 1747–1748
ultimately lost statistical validity over time
Positioning
2.6
The paper presents positive, null, and negative findings from the OA citation literature and identifies the most relevant prior LIS study. It does not carry the central confounding limitations or its stated MIS-category caveat through to the practical and interdisciplinary conclusions.
Introduction, pp. 1734–1736; Methods, p. 1736; Discussion and Conclusion, pp. 1747–1748
Any conclusions drawn from this study need to be interpreted accordingly
Lower confidence on Contribution, Positioning — domain match limited.
Reliability
Caveats4 of 4 checks
Internal CoherenceNoted
The tabulated results are broadly internally consistent, but the Discussion misstates the statistical status of the late-period temporal result. This affects interpretation rather than the reported database values themselves.
Research ConductClean
The study uses secondary bibliometric records, declares institutional funding, and makes no data- or code-availability claim requiring verification. No human-subjects ethics declaration or preregistration is required for the reported design.
Flags: 0 declared / 5 total
Reference IntegrityNoted
16 of 18 checkable references verified
19 references in manuscript 1 are books, websites or datasets — counted, but not index-checkable
Post-Publication RecordClean
No retraction notice found in Retraction Watch.
Last checked: 28 Sep 2026
Sources: Retraction Watch ✓
Readiness
Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.
Mechanistic
The evidence is a retrospective bibliometric description rather than an intervention, quasi-experiment, or operational test. It can inform discussion but cannot directly determine the citation consequences of choosing an OA route.
Research methodology, pp. 1736–1738; Conclusion, p. 1748
the results of this study don’t give clear guidance
AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.