broad definition of "impact"

That paper did have a huge real impact, but maybe doesn't qualify as "minimal" citation impact? Unless you mean one of the other ones, they have several.

Option: Foa, Gillihan & Bryant (2013). "Challenges and Successes in Dissemination of Evidence-Based Treatments for Posttraumatic Stress: Lessons Learned From Prolonged Exposure Therapy for PTSD" Not perfect. I am uncertain of actual impact & 30 cites/yr isn't minimal; but strong practice orientation

For this cell, I think about papers that tackle an important problem within a field and are recognized for having contributed effectively to that problem.

In metascience, for example, a prototype for me is Scheel, Schijen, & Lakens (2021). 542 citations.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

And there are many interesting email threads too, though those are more idiosyncratic.

I wonder if that is a more extreme example that belongs in the bottom row?

For this cell, I am trying to think of those papers that had an a meaningful impact, but are cited mindlessly or "by tradition" as time passes.

Or, a paper that spurred productive inquiry but was more limited than initially understood, like Steele (1997).

This one? www.cell.com/current-biol...

2714 citations, >500 year. Nominated for the moderate actual impact cell or wait for the minimal impact?

Do you have an exemplar paper from Hofstede to suggest?

"Original paper" may not be quite right as the work was done over a couple of decades, but none of the papers that were published AFAIK were cited much.

My original post suggested limiting this to social-behavioral science papers, but Tu's is so perfect for that cell (and got the most votes via likes) that I eliminated that requirement.

That might be ordinary time for Google Scholar’s ingestion but tagging @olsonscholcomm.bsky.social in case there’s something on our side that could be relevant. Thanks for flagging!