How Journal Reference Limits Relate to Citation Behavior in Psychology

Citations are shaping scholarly visibility and evaluation. Editorial policies that limit the number of references remain controversial: while intended to ensure a critical rather than exhaustive selection of sources, such limits may constrain comprehensive and inclusive citation practices and reinforce the Matthew effect. Prior research shows that reference list characteristics, such as length, diversity, and prestige, predict article-level impact, yet little is known about whether journal-imposed reference limits influence the composition of reference lists. This study examines whether articles in psychology journals with reference limits differ from those without such limits in terms of (a) the prestige of cited journals and (b) the field- and year-normalized citation impact of cited works. Using OpenAlex data for research articles and reviews published in 38 psychology journals (2000–2025), we will compare journals with and without reference limits, applying matching and mixed-effects models. Findings will inform debates on editorial policy, equity, and citation-based metrics. notReviewed other

引用实践正塑造学术成果的传播可见性与评价体系。对参考文献数量加以限制的编辑政策始终颇具争议：尽管此类政策初衷是确保研究者对文献来源进行批判性而非穷尽式的遴选，但这类限制可能会约束全面且包容的引用行为，并强化马太效应（Matthew Effect）。已有研究表明，参考文献列表的特征（如长度、多样性与引用声望）可预测单篇文章的学术影响力，但目前学界对期刊强制设定的参考文献限制是否会影响参考文献列表的构成仍知之甚少。本研究旨在探讨：设置参考文献数量限制的心理学期刊所刊载的论文，在（a）被引期刊的声望，以及（b）被引文献的领域与年份标准化引用影响力这两方面，是否与未设置此类限制的期刊论文存在差异。本研究使用OpenAlex数据库中2000年至2025年间发表于38种心理学期刊的研究论文与综述类文献数据，通过匹配法与混合效应模型，对比设置与未设置参考文献限制的期刊。本研究结果将为编辑政策、学术公平以及基于引用的评价指标相关讨论提供参考。未评审其他内容