By Dr. Reza Olfati-Saber
New research reveals how academic publishing has evolved into a discriminatory system that may be actively hindering scientific progress by excluding high-quality research based on economics, geography, and institutional connections
You’ve submitted what you believe is groundbreaking research. Your methodology is sound, your findings are significant, and your conclusions could reshape your field. Yet your manuscript is rejected—not after rigorous peer review, but through a brief “desk rejection” that seems to have nothing to do with scientific merit.
If this sounds familiar, you’re not experiencing isolated bad luck. You’re encountering what mounting evidence suggests is systematic discrimination embedded in the very foundations of academic publishing—a crisis that threatens the integrity of scientific progress itself.
The Economic Reality Behind Your Rejection
The transformation of academic publishing over the past two decades has created what researchers now recognize as a “two-tier” system that fundamentally alters who gets published. Björk and Solomon’s (2019) comprehensive analysis of scholarly journals reveals that gold open access journals consistently have significantly higher acceptance rates than subscription journals. While this might initially seem promising for authors, the underlying economics tell a more troubling story.
Open access publications generate immediate revenue of $1,500-$4,000 per article through Article Processing Charges (APCs), while traditional submissions generate zero immediate income for publishers. As Borrego (2023) documents in Learned Publishing, this creates an inherent economic incentive structure where publishers favor submissions that generate revenue, potentially undermining quality-based selection processes.
The scale of this economic discrimination is staggering. Borrego’s (2023) research demonstrates that APCs systematically exclude “researchers in developing countries, unaffiliated researchers, graduate students and faculty members without large federal grants”—effectively creating a pay-to-publish system that filters research based on funding access rather than scientific merit.
The Institutional Favoritism You Didn’t Know Existed
Perhaps even more disturbing than economic bias is the extent of institutional discrimination in academic publishing. Kulala et al.’s (2024) empirical study of 2,000 manuscript submissions across 20 journals found statistically significant bias favoring manuscripts from prestigious institutions, evidenced by both higher acceptance rates and faster review processes.
But here’s what makes this particularly troubling for scientific integrity: institutional bias may actually reduce research quality. Reingewertz and Lutmar’s (2018) analysis revealed that papers published in authors’ “home” journals—where institutional connections exist—receive 9-19 fewer citations on average compared to papers published elsewhere. This suggests that institutional favoritism selects for connections rather than scientific impact, creating what we might call a “quality inversion” where bias mechanisms actually undermine the standards they claim to protect.
The scope of institutional favoritism is substantial, though specific concentration statistics require further empirical verification across different academic disciplines.
Geographic Exclusion in Scientific Publishing
If you’re a researcher from certain parts of the world, your work faces additional systematic barriers regardless of quality. Mrowinski et al.’s (2020) detailed analysis of journal submission patterns found that while external submissions from countries like India, Iran, and China constitute the majority of submissions to many international journals, these papers face systematically different treatment in review processes.
This geographic discrimination extends beyond individual prejudice to systematic underrepresentation in publishing infrastructure. Roberts et al.’s (2020) five-decade analysis of top psychology journals revealed that articles highlighting race have been systematically rare, with journals edited by White editors showing a “notable dearth of published articles highlighting race and racism.” Meanwhile, Greco et al.’s (2016) demographic study found that 90.79% of scholarly publishing employees identify as White, with Hispanic/Latino representation at only 0.77%.
These demographics don’t just represent diversity statistics—they indicate systematic barriers to scientific perspectives that could drive breakthrough discoveries.
The Industry Researcher’s Impossible Choice
If you work in industry, you face perhaps the most insidious form of discrimination. While academic researchers benefit from institutional partnerships, library consortia agreements, and grant funding for APCs, industry professionals typically face full fees and lack access to the informal networks that facilitate academic publishing.
This creates a fundamental market failure: the system designed to disseminate the best scientific knowledge systematically excludes practically applicable research from industry, regardless of quality or potential impact. Industry researchers must choose between paying thousands of dollars per publication or accepting that their potentially transformative work will remain invisible to the broader scientific community.
The Volume Crisis Destroying Quality Assessment
The sheer volume of submissions is compromising the review process itself. Craig et al.’s (2022) analysis found desk rejection rates ranging from 20-50% across journals, with many editorial decisions made under severe time constraints that make thorough quality assessment nearly impossible.
This volume pressure creates a dangerous feedback loop. As Craig et al. (2022) document, the “increase in submissions from countries such as India, Brazil and China has exacerbated the situation, where a plethora of weaker papers have entered the pipeline only to be desk rejected.” However, when editors face overwhelming submission volumes, they increasingly rely on superficial indicators like institutional affiliation and geographic origin as quality proxies—creating systematic discrimination masquerading as editorial efficiency.
The Breakthrough Research We’re Losing
The most alarming evidence comes from studies of what happens to genuinely important research in this biased system. Siler et al.’s (2015) landmark study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that prestigious medical journals rejected 14 of what became the most highly cited manuscripts in their field, with 12 rejected before any peer review occurred.
This isn’t just unfortunate—it represents systematic failure of the scientific enterprise. When some of the most important scientific contributions are initially rejected by the system designed to identify and disseminate valuable research, we must ask: how many paradigm-shifting discoveries never reach publication at all?
The Cascading Crisis: From Individual Careers to Scientific Progress
These biases create cascading impacts that extend far beyond individual career frustrations. For researchers navigating this system, the consequences are both immediate and career-defining.
Career Devastation Across Demographics
Industry researchers face systematic exclusion from academic discourse, limiting their ability to contribute to scientific knowledge and advance professionally. Academic researchers from less prestigious institutions struggle to build publication records necessary for tenure and promotion, regardless of research quality. International researchers encounter geographic penalties that limit global recognition and collaboration opportunities.
The Kulala et al. (2024) documentation of systematic bias against non-prestigious institutions means early-career researchers must navigate institutional stratification alongside research excellence—a burden that diverts time and energy from actual scientific work.
Scientific Knowledge Distortion
These individual impacts aggregate into systematic distortions of the scientific record itself. When Roberts et al. (2020) document the systematic exclusion of race-related research from top psychology journals, and Greco et al. (2016) reveal extreme demographic homogeneity in publishing infrastructure, entire research perspectives and methodological approaches become systematically underrepresented.
The result is what we might call “scientific exclusion”—a system where access to knowledge dissemination depends more on institutional connections and economic resources than research quality.
Innovation Ecosystem Breakdown
When industry research faces systematic barriers to publication, the crucial bridge between theoretical knowledge and practical application weakens. Academic research becomes increasingly disconnected from real-world problems, while practical solutions developed in industry settings remain invisible to the broader scientific community.
The quality paradox identified by Reingewertz and Lutmar (2018)—where institutionally-favored papers receive fewer citations—suggests that bias mechanisms actively reduce average research quality by prioritizing connections over merit.
Evidence-Based Solutions: Combating Scientific Exclusion
Fortunately, the same rigorous research that exposes these biases also points toward evidence-based solutions.
Immediate Technical Interventions
Double-blind review processes represent the most promising immediate intervention. Research consistently demonstrates that journals using double-blind peer review achieve significantly more equitable outcomes across institutional and demographic lines, directly addressing the institutional favoritism documented by Kulala et al. (2024) and geographic discrimination found by Mrowinski et al. (2020).
Transparency requirements offer equally powerful immediate tools. Journals should publish detailed statistics on acceptance rates by institutional prestige, geographic distribution, and correlations between APC payment and acceptance rates. Such transparency would expose bias patterns and create accountability pressure through public scrutiny.
Economic Model Reform
The economic incentive structure identified by Borrego (2023) requires fundamental reform. Diamond open access—where neither authors nor readers pay—offers the most promising alternative. While Björk and Solomon (2019) found that 69% of open access journals already use this model, they publish only 35% of articles due to indexing and prestige disparities that policy intervention could address.
Tiered APC systems based on institutional funding capacity, geographic economic indicators, and career stage could address systematic exclusion of industry researchers and those from developing countries while maintaining journal economic viability.
Structural Governance Changes
The demographic homogeneity identified by Greco et al. (2016) requires systematic diversification of editorial boards and reviewer pools. Including industry professionals as reviewers for applied research could address systematic exclusion of practically applicable research while bringing valuable perspectives to academic evaluation.
Post-publication peer review systems could reduce the gatekeeping power of pre-publication bias while maintaining quality standards. This approach might prevent the systematic rejection of breakthrough research documented by Siler et al. (2015), allowing paradigm-shifting work to reach the scientific community even when it challenges established perspectives.
Technology and Policy Solutions
Artificial intelligence systems could identify unusual acceptance patterns, flag biased review language, and match reviewers based on expertise rather than networks. Such systems could address the volume-driven decision-making documented by Craig et al. (2022) while reducing reliance on superficial quality indicators.
Research funding agencies hold significant leverage by requiring grantees to publish in journals with demonstrated equitable practices and providing dedicated APC funding. Academic institutions must reform promotion criteria to de-emphasize journal prestige in favor of impact measures independent of publication venue.
The Collective Action Imperative
Individual researchers cannot solve this crisis alone—it requires coordinated intervention across multiple levels. The evidence suggests that successful reform demands:
Immediate Actions:
- Transparency requirements and bias monitoring
- Double-blind review expansion
- Alternative APC funding mechanisms
Medium-term Reforms:
- Diamond open access scaling
- Academic promotion criteria reform
- Technology-assisted bias detection
Long-term Transformation:
- Merit-based evaluation system restructuring
- Global equity standards for scientific publishing
- Truly equitable alternative networks
What This Means for Your Research Career
Understanding these biases is crucial for strategic career planning, but it’s equally important for recognizing your role in systematic change:
If you’re an industry researcher: Consider collaborative partnerships with academic institutions, focus on specialized journals, and advocate for industry-inclusive review processes.
If you’re from an underrepresented region: Build diverse international collaborations, engage with regional journals building global recognition, and participate in reform advocacy.
If you’re at a prestigious institution: Use your platform to mentor researchers from underrepresented backgrounds, advocate for equitable practices, and support alternative publishing models.
For all researchers: Demand transparency from journals, support diamond open access initiatives, and recognize that fighting bias isn’t just about fairness—it’s about ensuring the best ideas reach the scientific community regardless of their source.
The Stakes for Human Progress
The evidence is clear: current academic publishing operates under systematic biases that may actively hinder scientific progress by excluding potentially breakthrough research. The question isn’t whether these biases exist—multiple peer-reviewed studies document their prevalence and impact.
The question is whether we, as a scientific community, will act on this evidence before systematic bias causes irreparable damage to humanity’s capacity for knowledge advancement. When Siler et al. (2015) show that some of the most important scientific contributions were initially rejected by the system designed to validate them, we face a choice: reform the system or accept that countless discoveries may be lost to institutional prejudice and economic discrimination.
The scientific enterprise depends on the fundamental assumption that good ideas can emerge from anywhere and will be recognized based on merit. The mounting evidence suggests we’re failing that test. Restoring merit-based selection to academic publishing isn’t just an ethical imperative—it’s essential for preserving science’s capacity to solve the complex challenges facing humanity.
The tools for change exist. The evidence for action is overwhelming. What remains is the collective will to transform academic publishing from a system that excludes based on privilege to one that truly advances human knowledge based on merit.
Dr. Reza Olfati-Saber is a distinguished researcher in AI systems and governance with a Ph.D from MIT. He has published seminal peer-reviewed papers on cooperative multi-agent systems while working across both prestigious academic institutions and industry settings. His interdisciplinary experience navigating the academic publishing landscape examined in this analysis provides unique insight into the systemic barriers that may be hindering scientific progress in emerging technological fields.
References
Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2019). Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: A literature survey. Profesional de la información, 28(4), e280407.
Borrego, Á. (2023). Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 359-378.
Craig, R., et al. (2022). Editorial: How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102426.
Greco, A., Wharton, R., & Brand, A. (2016). Demographics of scholarly publishing and communication professionals. Learned Publishing, 29(2), 97-101.
Kulala, A., et al. (2024). Unmasking favoritism and bias in academic publishing: An empirical study on editorial practices. Public Integrity, 26(6), 123-145.
Mrowinski, M. J., Fronczak, A., Fronczak, P., Nedic, O., & Ausloos, M. (2020). The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study. Scientometrics, 125, 115-133.
Reingewertz, Y., & Lutmar, C. (2018). Academic in-group bias: An empirical examination of the link between author and journal affiliation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 156, 56-85.
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1292-1309.
Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360-365.
Leave a Reply