The Post-Embargo Open Access Citation Advantage: It Exists (Probably), Its Modest (Usually), and the Rich Get Richer (of Course)

PLoS One. 2016 Aug 22;11(8):e0159614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159614. eCollection 2016.

Abstract

Many studies show that open access (OA) articles-articles from scholarly journals made freely available to readers without requiring subscription fees-are downloaded, and presumably read, more often than closed access/subscription-only articles. Assertions that OA articles are also cited more often generate more controversy. Confounding factors (authors may self-select only the best articles to make OA; absence of an appropriate control group of non-OA articles with which to compare citation figures; conflation of pre-publication vs. published/publisher versions of articles, etc.) make demonstrating a real citation difference difficult. This study addresses those factors and shows that an open access citation advantage as high as 19% exists, even when articles are embargoed during some or all of their prime citation years. Not surprisingly, better (defined as above median) articles gain more when made OA.

MeSH terms

  • Bibliometrics*
  • Biomedical Research
  • Humans
  • Information Dissemination
  • Open Access Publishing / ethics
  • Open Access Publishing / statistics & numerical data*

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the University of Michigan, University Library Research and Creative Projects Committee; Michigan Publishing. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.