2025/10/18 by Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M. Odeh, Shawn M. Purnell +4 · 1 voice
Decision Sciences · #Academic Publishing and Open Access #Meta-analysis and systematic reviews #scientometrics and bibliometrics research
paper · doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211
openalex publication_date 2025/10/18 · openalex created_date 2025/10/18 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
BACKGROUND: Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors. METHODS: The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated 35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Authors publishing in companion open access journals incur higher publication costs, and yet, receive fewer citations per publication.