  In the evaluation of scientific publications' impact, the interplay between
intrinsic quality and non-scientific factors remains a subject of debate. While
peer review traditionally assesses quality, bibliometric techniques gauge
scholarly impact. This study investigates the role of non-scientific attributes
alongside quality scores from peer review in determining scholarly impact.
Leveraging data from the first Italian Research Assessment Exercise (VTR
2001-2003) and Web of Science citations, we analyse the relationship between
quality scores, non-scientific factors, and publication short- and long-term
impact. Our findings shed light on the significance of non-scientific elements
overlooked in peer review, offering policymakers and research management
insights in choosing evaluation methodologies. Sections delve into the debate,
identify non-scientific influences, detail methodologies, present results, and
discuss implications.
