Analysis Reveals Publication Prestige Depends Most on Topic and Location

A new study led by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder provides one of the most detailed views yet into how elite general science journals decide which manuscripts advance through editorial screening and peer review. Published July 15 in Science Advances, the work analyzes 110,303 anonymized submissions to Science and Science Advances spanning five years, offering a rare, data-driven “black box” look at what gets through—and what does not.

General-interest journals such as these act as high-stakes gatekeepers: they shape scientific attention, influence funding and hiring decisions, and can affect public policy. Their selectivity is therefore consequential, with Science receiving more than 15,000 submissions in a single year.

The analysis finds that acceptance is highly stratified. Over the study period, Science accepted 6.1% of submissions and Science Advances accepted 10.5%. Roughly 83% of Science submissions and about 75% of Science Advances papers were rejected by in-house editors before external peer review could even begin.

Beyond overall selectivity, the study identifies correlates tied to editorial outcomes. Papers with larger author teams—especially those with 10 or more authors—were substantially more likely to be accepted than single-author or small-team submissions. Institutional prestige also mattered, with corresponding authors from the most prestigious institutions showing markedly higher acceptance rates than those from lower-ranked institutions.

The results also point to a strong role for geographic and topical patterns. Submissions with corresponding authors based in China were far less likely to be accepted than those based in the U.S. or Canada. Importantly, authors with Chinese names but based in the U.S. also faced a disadvantage, suggesting the observed effect may not be purely institutional access.

Topic alignment emerged as another major driver. Pre-COVID research related to viruses, infection, RNA, and immune response showed a much higher acceptance likelihood than studies on politics, economics, gender, and other social dimensions of health.

The study further reports a small but detectable gender-linked difference at the level of corresponding authorship. While the association was described as marginal, it was still large enough that, in counterfactual terms, Science would have published dozens more women-corresponding papers per year.

The authors emphasize that the findings do not prove editors or reviewers are personally biased. Instead, they raise methodological questions about how quality, reputation, and incentive structures interact with manuscript evaluation. They also stress transparency by making their dataset available after anonymization, aiming to help journals test and improve their processes.

In the current era—where AI-generated low-quality submissions (“AI slop”) can flood the literature—the study argues that the integrity and fairness of established gatekeeping systems become even more critical.