Relationships between age and scholarly impact were assessed by determining the number of times single-author articles (N=227) published inPsychological Review between 1965 and 1980 were cited in the fifth year following publication. There were substantial individual differences in citation rates, but this measure of scholarly impact did not correlate with either the chronological age of authors or their professional age (years since PhD award). Although the majority of articles inPsychological Review were published by authors under the age of 40, such a bias is to be expected in terms of the age distribution of American psychologists. When allowance was made for the number of authors in different age ranges, older authors were no less likely than younger authors to have generated a high-impact article (an article cited 10 or more times in the fifth year after publication). The data offer no support to claims that publications by young scientists have greater impact.