Does Open Access Matter for Citations? A Topic-Stratified Analysis of Library and Information Science Discipline
This study of Library and Information Science publications reveals that the open access citation advantage is not uniform but is instead topic-dependent and largely driven by health-sciences-adjacent subfields, while being significantly attenuated when controlling for journal-level citation baselines.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the world of academic research, there is a persistent belief that making a scientific paper freely available to anyone with an internet connection will automatically lead to more people reading it and, consequently, more people citing it in their own work. This idea, often called the "open access citation advantage," suggests that if you remove the paywall, the work naturally rises to the top. The logic seems sound: more eyes on a page should mean more references to it. However, the reality of how scholars read and write is rarely that simple. Research fields are not monoliths; they are collections of distinct sub-fields, each with its own culture, habits, and ways of sharing information. Furthermore, the reputation of the journal where a paper appears often acts as a powerful filter, influencing how many times that paper is cited regardless of whether it is free to read. Understanding whether free access truly drives citations, or if other factors are doing the heavy lifting, is crucial for universities and funding agencies that are increasingly mandating that research be made open.
A team of researchers at Mizoram University in India set out to test this belief with a massive, detailed look at the field of Library and Information Science. They gathered nearly 15,000 research papers published between 2010 and 2024, a period during which open access publishing grew significantly. Instead of treating all these papers as a single block of data, the researchers used a sophisticated computer method to sort them into 52 distinct research topics based on the actual words and themes within the text. This allowed them to see if the "open access advantage" was a universal rule or if it only applied to specific corners of the discipline. They then compared the citation rates of free papers against paid papers, carefully accounting for factors like the number of authors, whether the research was an international collaboration, and, most importantly, the typical citation performance of the journal in which the paper was published.
The study found that while open access papers do, on average, receive more citations than those behind a paywall, the relationship is far from uniform across the entire field. When looking at the discipline as a whole, there is a modest positive link between being free to read and being cited. However, when the researchers broke the data down by topic, the picture changed dramatically. Out of the 50 research areas they analyzed in detail, 40 showed no detectable benefit from being open access at all. The advantage was not spread out evenly; instead, it was concentrated almost entirely in ten specific topics, most of which were related to health sciences, such as clinical librarianship and medical student information literacy. In these health-adjacent areas, open access papers were cited significantly more often. In the other 40 topics, which included areas like general information literacy, public library services, and digital preservation, being open access made no statistical difference in how often the work was cited.
Perhaps the most revealing part of the analysis came when the researchers controlled for the "citation environment" of the journals themselves. They discovered that the single strongest predictor of how many citations a paper received was not whether it was open access, but the average citation rate of the other papers published in that same journal. High-impact journals tend to publish papers that get cited more, regardless of access status. When the researchers added this journal-level factor into their calculations, the apparent advantage of open access was cut by more than half. This suggests that much of the perceived benefit of open access is actually a reflection of the fact that open access papers are often published in journals that already have high visibility and prestige. The study also found that this relationship has remained steady over time, with no significant change in the advantage from 2010 to 2022, despite the rapid growth of open access policies during that decade.
Ultimately, the research indicates that the value of open access for citations is highly dependent on the specific subject matter and the journal in which the work appears. It is not a magic bullet that guarantees more attention for every paper in every field. For researchers in health-related library science, making their work open appears to provide a clear boost in visibility and citations. For scholars in other areas of library science, the decision to publish openly may not translate into a measurable increase in citations, at least not beyond what the journal's existing reputation already provides. The findings suggest that while open access policies are valuable for broadening the reach of research, the assumption that they will automatically lead to higher citation counts across the board needs to be tempered with a more nuanced understanding of how different research communities operate.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.