Abstract Purpose Researchers are more likely to read and cite papers to which they have access than those that they cannot obtain. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyze the contribution of the Open Access (OA) modality to the impact of hybrid journals. Design/methodology/approach The “research articles” in the year 2017 from 200 hybrid journals in four subject areas, and the citations received by such articles in the period 2017–2020 in the Scopus database, were analyzed. The hybrid OA papers were compared with the paywalled ones. The journals were randomly selected from those with share of OA papers higher than some minimal value. More than 60 thousand research articles were analyzed in the sample, of which 24% under the OA modality. Findings We obtain at journal level that cites per article in both hybrid modalities (OA and paywalled) strongly correlate. However, there is no correlation between the OA prevalence and cites per article. There is OA citation advantage in 80% of hybrid journals. Moreover, the OA citation advantage is consistent across fields and held in time. We obtain an OA citation advantage of 50% in average, and higher than 37% in half of the hybrid journals. Finally, the OA citation advantage is higher in Humanities than in Science and Social Science. Research limitations Some of the citation advantage is likely due to more access allows more people to read and hence cite articles they otherwise would not. However, causation is difficult to establish and there are many possible bias. Several factors can affect the observed differences in citation rates. Funder mandates can be one of them. Funders are likely to have OA requirement, and well-funded studies are more likely to receive more citations than poorly funded studies. Another discussed factor is the selection bias postulate, which suggests that authors choose only their most impactful studies to be open access. Practical implications For hybrid journals, the open access modality is positive, in the sense that it provides a greater number of potential readers. This in turn translates into a greater number of citations and an improvement in the position of the journal in the rankings by impact factor. For researchers it is also positive because it increases the potential number of readers and citations received. Originality/value Our study refines previous results by comparing documents more similar to each other. Although it does not examine the cause of the observed citation advantage, we find that it exists in a very large sample.

中文翻译：

---

开放获取模式对受领域和时间效应控制的混合期刊影响的贡献

摘要目的研究人员更有可能阅读和引用他们可以访问的论文而不是他们无法获得的论文。因此，这项工作的目的是分析开放获取 (OA) 模式对混合期刊影响的贡献。设计/方法/方法 分析了 2017 年来自四个学科领域的 200 种混合期刊的“研究文章”，以及这些文章在 2017-2020 年期间在 Scopus 数据库中收到的引用。将混合 OA 论文与付费专区的论文进行了比较。这些期刊是从那些 OA 论文份额高于某个最小值的期刊中随机选择的。样本中分析了 6 万多篇研究文章，其中 24% 在 OA 模式下。结果 我们在期刊层面获得的每篇文章在两种混合模式（OA 和付费专区）中的引用量具有很强的相关性。然而，OA 流行率和每篇文章的引用之间没有相关性。80% 的混合期刊具有 OA 引用优势。此外，OA 的引文优势在各个领域是一致的，并且是及时的。我们平均获得 50% 的 OA 引用优势，在一半的混合期刊中高于 37%。最后，OA 的引用优势在人文科学领域高于科学和社会科学领域。研究限制 一些引用优势可能是由于更多的访问权限允许更多的人阅读并因此引用他们原本不会引用的文章。然而，因果关系难以确定，并且存在许多可能的偏差。有几个因素会影响观察到的引用率差异。资助者授权可以是其中之一。资助者可能有 OA 要求，而且资金充足的研究比资金不足的研究更有可能获得更多的引用。另一个讨论的因素是选择偏差假设，这表明作者只选择他们最有影响力的研究作为开放获取。实际意义 对于混合期刊，开放获取模式是积极的，从某种意义上说，它提供了更多的潜在读者。这反过来又转化为更多的引用和期刊在影响因子排名中的地位的提高。对于研究人员来说，这也是积极的，因为它增加了潜在的读者数量和引用数量。原创性/价值 我们的研究通过比较彼此更相似的文档来完善先前的结果。虽然它没有检查观察到的引用优势的原因，但我们发现它存在于一个非常大的样本中。对于研究人员来说，这也是积极的，因为它增加了潜在的读者数量和引用数量。原创性/价值 我们的研究通过比较彼此更相似的文档来完善先前的结果。虽然它没有检查观察到的引用优势的原因，但我们发现它存在于一个非常大的样本中。对于研究人员来说，这也是积极的，因为它增加了潜在的读者数量和引用数量。原创性/价值 我们的研究通过比较彼此更相似的文档来完善先前的结果。虽然它没有检查观察到的引用优势的原因，但我们发现它存在于一个非常大的样本中。