What happens when new open-access journals mirror elite titles in every way except prestige? Economist W. Benedikt Schmal’s 2024 study analyzes Elsevier’s “mirror journal” experiment — a natural test of reputation in scientific publishing. Across 120,000 papers in 35 pairs of journals, the open-access versions (so-called “X journals”) received about 31 percent fewer citations than their parent titles, despite identical scope and quality. The findings expose reputation as a market barrier. Even when content is open and peer-reviewed, prestige loops — where top journals attract top authors who then reinforce rankings — keep incumbents dominant. Open access removes paywalls but not hierarchies. Authors from elite institutions suffer smaller penalties for publishing in X journals than those from developing regions, revealing inequities beyond economics. Schmal frames academic publishing as a two-sided market driven by brand trust and citation momentum. True reform, he argues, requires funding mandates and cultural change that value content over logo. Without such shifts, transformative agreements will stabilize monopoly power under the guise of openness. The X Factor demonstrates that free access alone cannot free science from its prestige economy. Real openness demands fair recognition as well as free reading. Produced by Cognivault — insight, intelligence, and innovation made clear.