Characteristics of frequently cited articles in mental retardation.

Sievert et al. (1988) counted features of mental-retardation articles. They compared the ones everyone cites with a random batch.

The team looked at who paid for the work, what design was used, and how stats were run.

Highly cited papers differ from the rest. The abstract does not say how big the gap is.

The study only tells us the direction: funded, fancy design, and more stats win citations.

Logan et al. (2000) updated the map. They show the same field twelve years later still hides service-delivery studies.

Lim et al. (2003) used the same counting trick. They found Aussie and U.S. universities own the journals.

Thom et al. (2026) also tally words. They track the slow death of "problem behavior" and the rise of "challenging behavior." All four papers use bibliometric counts to spot trends the eye misses.

If you write or teach, this paper is a warning. Articles with weak methods stay uncited. Funded, data-heavy pieces live longer. When you pick sources for a parent packet or CEU talk, choose the ones that passed these filters. Your own reports will gather more reads if you add clear stats and a simple design statement.