Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research (1001.0361v2)

Abstract: Articles whose authors make them Open Access (OA) by self-archiving them online are cited significantly more than articles accessible only to subscribers. Some have suggested that this "OA Advantage" may not be causal but just a self-selection bias, because authors preferentially make higher-quality articles OA. To test this we compared self-selective self-archiving with mandatory self-archiving for a sample of 27,197 articles published 2002-2006 in 1,984 journals. The OA Advantage proved just as high for both. Logistic regression showed that the advantage is independent of other correlates of citations (article age; journal impact factor; number of co-authors, references or pages; field; article type; or country) and greatest for the most highly cited articles. The OA Advantage is real, independent and causal, but skewed. Its size is indeed correlated with quality, just as citations themselves are (the top 20% of articles receive about 80% of all citations). The advantage is greater for the more citeable articles, not because of a quality bias from authors self-selecting what to make OA, but because of a quality advantage, from users self-selecting what to use and cite, freed by OA from the constraints of selective accessibility to subscribers only.

• The paper demonstrates that the Open Access advantage is causal, with both self-selected and mandated articles receiving higher citations independent of selection bias.
• The study used logistic regression on 27,197 articles from 1,984 journals, revealing robust citation benefits and a 60% compliance rate for mandated OA.
• The findings imply that broader adoption of mandatory OA policies can democratize access and enhance research impact across diverse disciplines.

Open Access and Its Impact on Citation: A Critical Analysis

This paper investigates the “Open Access (OA) Advantage,” a phenomenon where articles made freely accessible online by their authors tend to receive more citations than those restricted to subscribers. The research probes whether this advantage stems from a potential self-selection bias, wherein authors preferentially make higher-quality articles open access, or if it is a causal relationship.

Methodology and Findings

The paper examines 27,197 articles from 1,984 journals, published between 2002 and 2006, comparing self-selective open access against mandatory open access. Using logistic regression, the analysis determined that the OA Advantage is not merely a result of self-selection. Key findings include:

• The OA advantage exists regardless of whether open access is self-selected or mandated. This suggests that the increase in citation counts for OA articles has an independent causal effect.
• The advantage is more pronounced for highly cited articles, indicating a correlation with quality but not a bias.
• Articles mandated to be OA were cited as frequently as or more than self-selected OA articles, with a compliance rate of about 60%.
• The benefit of OA persists across various fields and institutional mandates, challenging the notion that it results solely from author bias in selecting which articles to make openly accessible.

Implications

The implications of these findings are significant for research policy and practice. The causal link between OA and increased citations underscores the potential benefits of broader OA adoption. This could drive more institutions and funding bodies to mandate OA, maximizing the accessibility and impact of academic research.

Moreover, the paper highlights the importance of OA in leveling the playing field, providing equitable access to research outputs irrespective of subscription limitations. This democratization of knowledge dissemination enhances the visibility and potential impact of high-quality research.

Speculations on Future Developments

Given the paper’s robust findings, future developments in OA might focus on increasing the compliance rate of mandated open access, aiming to move towards 100% accessibility. Additionally, as more fields and institutions adopt OA policies, the standardized measurements of research impact through citation metrics could evolve to better capture and incentivize open dissemination of research.

Conclusion

The paper makes a substantive contribution to the discourse on open access, providing empirical evidence that OA leads to increased citations independent of author self-selection biases. As open access policies continue to gain traction globally, the insights from this paper could guide strategic decisions by research institutions and funding agencies to mandate OA, ultimately fostering a more open and impactful academic environment.