Open peer review correlates with altmetrics but not with citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One

Against the backdrop of increasing transparency in scientific publications and the complexity of citation motivations, the applicability and efficacy of open peer review (OPR) remain controversial. Utilizing a dataset of citations and altmetrics for all articles published in Nature Communications and PloS One, in this study the impact of OPR is investigated from the dimensions of open review reports and open identity reviewers. The analysis reveals articles subjected to OPR have no obvious advantage in citations but a notable higher score in altmetrics. The distribution of data variation across most disciplines, displaying a statistically significant difference between OPR and non-OPR, mirrors the overall trend. Two potential explanations for the disparity in OPR's impact on citations compared to altmetrics are proposed. The first relates to the quality heterogeneity between OPR and non-OPR research, while the second is related to the diverse authors citing and mentioning articles in distinct communities. This study's findings carry policy implications for future OPR practices.