The potential benefit of open access (OA) in relation to citation impact has been discussed in the literature in depth. The methodology used to test the OA citation advantage includes comparing OA vs. non-OA journal impact factors and citations of OA versus non-OA articles published in the same non-OA journals. However, one problem with many studies is that they are small -restricted to a discipline or set of journals-. Moreover, conclusions are not entirely consistent among research areas and 'early view' and 'selection bias' have been suggested as possible explications. In the present paper, an analysis of gold OA from across all areas of research -the 27 subject areas of the Scopus database- is realized. As a novel contribution, this paper takes a journal-level approach to assessing the OA citation advantage, whereas many others take a paper-level approach. Data were obtained from Scimago Lab, sorted using Scopus database, and tagged as OA/non-OA using the DOAJ list. Jointly with the OA citation advantage, the OA prevalence as well as the differences between access types (OA vs. non-OA) in production and referencing are tested. A total of 3,737 OA journals (16.8%) and 18,485 non-OA journals (83.2%) published in 2015 are considered. As the main conclusion, there is no generalizable gold OA citation advantage at journal level.

中文翻译：

---

Scopus数据库主题领域中黄金开放获取的普遍性和引用优势

与文献影响相关的开放获取（OA）的潜在利益已在文献中进行了深入讨论。测试OA引用优势的方法包括比较OA与非OA期刊的影响因子，以及在同一本非OA期刊上发表的OA与非OA文章的引用。然而，许多研究的一个问题是它们很小-仅限于一门学科或一组期刊。此外，结论在研究领域之间并不完全一致，“早期观点”和“选择偏见”被认为是可能的解释。在本文中，对来自所有研究领域（Scopus数据库的27个主题领域）的金OA进行了分析。作为一项新颖的贡献，本文采用了期刊级的方法来评估OA引用的优势，而其他许多人则采用纸面的方法。数据从Scimago实验室获得，使用Scopus数据库排序，并使用DOAJ列表标记为OA /非OA。结合OA引用优势，对OA流行度以及生产​​和引用中访问类型（OA与非OA）之间的差异进行了测试。在2015年，总共考虑了3,737种OA期刊（占16.8％）和18,485种非OA期刊（占83.2％）。作为主要结论，期刊水平上没有可推广的金OA引用优势。考虑了2015年出版的737份OA期刊（16.8％）和18,485份非OA期刊（83.2％）。作为主要结论，期刊水平上没有可推广的金OA引用优势。考虑了2015年出版的737份OA期刊（16.8％）和18,485份非OA期刊（83.2％）。作为主要结论，期刊水平上没有可推广的金OA引用优势。