Abstract
This study aims to investigate whether open peer review can improve citation count. Articles published in PeerJ during 2013 and 2015 were chosen as the data set. Two categories of the articles were generated: articles with closed peer review history and articles with open peer review history. A propensity score matching with the radius matching method was performed using 14 confounding variables. The other five common matching methods of propensity score matching, the bias-adjusted matching estimator developed by Abadie and Imbens (Simple and bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, pp 1–57, 2002), and the data set excluding articles with an extremely high citation count were used to check the robustness of the results. The results of this study showed that articles with open peer review history could be expected to have significantly greater citation counts than articles with closed peer review history. Our results suggest that open peer review can improve citation count, and that the best practice for open peer review might be a compromise open peer review.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
