The Relationship between Institutional Prestige, Journal Impact Factor, and Sample Size in fMRI Studies of Memory: A Systematic Review

Low statistical power remains a persistent concern in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research, largely due to small sample sizes. Although prior work has documented gradual increases in sample size over time, it remains unclear whether structural factors in the publication process are associated with study design characteristics such as sample size. This review addresses this gap by analyzing a large sample of fMRI studies to assess how institutional prestige, journal impact factor, and journal review practices are associated with sample size. We analyzed articles published in 2021-2024 reporting new fMRI data collection in adult humans and including a measure of memory. We found studies with specialized populations, such as patient populations, had smaller sample sizes, as did studies with task-based designs compared to resting-state designs. We also found larger sample sizes were associated with journals with a double-blind review process. Institutional prestige was positively associated with sample size such that more highly ranked institutions tended to have larger samples, but there was no interaction between review type (single-vs. double-blind) and prestige, indicating this difference is not likely due to reviewer bias. Journal impact factor was not associated with sample size, however institutional prestige score predicted journal impact factor. These results suggest structural factors at the institutional level likely have a stronger influence on published study sample size than reviewer practices or biases.