Before revision:  We investigate the relationships between citations , quality, and impact using a survey with an embedded experiment in which 12,670 authors in 15 academic fieldsdescribe about 25K specific referencing decisions. Results suggest that citation counts, when equated with quality and impact, are biased in opposite directions. First, experimentally exposing papers' actual citation counts during the survey causes respondents to perceive all but the top 10\% cited papers as of lower quality.
After revision:  We investigate high-influence and low-influence citations and the mechanisms producing them using 17,154 ground-truth citation types provided via survey by 9,380 authors systematically sampled across academic fields. Overall, 54\% of citations denote little-to-no influence and these citations are concentrated among low status (lightly cited) papers. In contrast, high-influence citations are concentrated among high status (highly cited) papers through a number of steps that resemble a pipeline. Authors discover highly cited papers earlier in their projects, more often through social contacts, and read them more closely. Papers' status, above and beyond any quality differences, directly helps determine their pipeline: experimentally revealing or hiding citation counts during the survey causes respondents to perceive all but the top 10\% cited papers as of lower quality.