Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals.

By M. Callaham, Robert L. Wears, E. Weber. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2002

656 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013, background): “…established for some time that the actual effect of journal rank is measurable, but nowhere near as substantial as indicated (Seglen, 1994, 1997; Callaham, 2002; Chow et al., 2007; Kravitz and Baker, 2011; Hegarty and Walton, 2012; Finardi, 2013) and as one would expect if visibility were the…”
Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer (2014, background): “Analyses of clinical registries and abstracts submitted to medical conferences consistently find little to no editorial bias against studies with null findings (26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31).”
Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? (2011, result): “Consistent with overall citation count (Hansen and Henriksen 1997; Callaham et al. 2002; Chapman et al. 2009; Haslam and Koval 2010; Hunt et al. 2010) and with use of articles (Wulff and Nixon 2004).”