policy
Peer Review Has a Prestige Gradient
An analysis of 110,000 submissions found institution, geography, author identity, and research topic strongly shaped publication odds.
Summary
An analysis of 110,000 submissions found institution, geography, author identity, and research topic strongly shaped publication odds.
A University of Colorado Boulder-led team analyzed more than 110,000 manuscript submissions made over five years to elite science journals. Authors from prestigious universities were more than three times as likely to be published as researchers from lesser-known institutions. Authors based in China were substantially less likely to succeed, and the analysis also found disadvantages associated with Chinese-sounding names and with work on politics, economics, gender, and other social subjects. Observational data cannot reveal every editorial reason behind an individual decision, but the scale makes journal selection itself visible as a source of inequality in the scientific record.
Why it matters
An analysis of 110,000 submissions found institution, geography, author identity, and research topic strongly shaped publication odds.
Limits and context
- Observational data cannot reveal every editorial reason behind an individual decision, but the scale makes journal selection itself visible as a source of inequality in the scientific record.
Key claims
An analysis of 110,000 submissions found institution, geography, author identity, and research topic strongly shaped publication odds.
Qualification: Observational data cannot reveal every editorial reason behind an individual decision, but the scale makes journal selection itself visible as a source of inequality in the scientific record.
Evidence: source-2026-07-16-009
Sources
- University of Colorado Boulder via Newswise: Academic publishing black boxUniversity of Colorado Boulder via Newswise · official announcement
Corrections
No corrections have been recorded for this story.