Supplementary materials for: We Need Reference Evaluation, Not Reference Limits. An Empirical Complement to Lawson et al. (2025)

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.