Abstract Article impact is becoming an increasingly popular metric for assessing a scholar's influence, yet little is known about its properties or the factors that affect it. This study tests whether author, article, and methodological attributes influence the impact of SMJ articles, defined as summed counts of article citations. Findings reveal that authors having fewer, more‐often cited articles tended to have SMJ articles that received the most citations. In addition, whether an article appears in a regular or a special issue is not a stable predictor of its impact. Moreover, empirical articles that test primary data, control for more threats to internal validity, and have higher statistical power tend to receive more citations. Further, an article's long‐term impact oftentimes becomes apparent shortly after its publication. Overall, the findings provide new insights into the determinants of impact and its temporal qualities and help explain some of the differences between high and average impact articles. The findings also underscore the need for transparency between author publication strategies (article volume, impact) and the requirements of his/her institution. Implications for authors, reviewers, editors, and administrative evaluation are offered. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 148 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.