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.

中文翻译：

---

开放同行评审会提高引用计数吗？来自 PeerJ 倾向得分匹配分析的证据

本研究旨在调查开放同行评审是否可以提高引用计数。选择 2013 年和 2015 年在 PeerJ 上发表的文章作为数据集。生成了两类文章：具有封闭同行评审历史的文章和具有开放同行评审历史的文章。使用 14 个混杂变量进行与半径匹配方法匹配的倾向得分。倾向得分匹配的其他五种常见匹配方法，Abadie 和 Imbens 开发的偏差调整匹配估计器（Simple and bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects，National Bureau of Economic Research，Cambridge，pp 1–57, 2002） ，并使用排除具有极高引用计数的文章的数据集来检查结果的稳健性。这项研究的结果表明，与具有封闭同行评审历史的文章相比，具有开放同行评审历史的文章的引用次数有望显着增加。我们的结果表明，开放同行评审可以提高引用计数，开放同行评审的最佳实践可能是折衷的开放同行评审。