Editorial and peer review dynamics at elite general science journals

Area of Science:

• General science
• Bibliometrics
• Scholarly publishing

Background:

• Elite general science journals significantly influence scientific discourse, policy, and careers.
• Confidentiality in editorial processes has hindered understanding and improvement of scientific review.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze manuscript evaluation dynamics at elite general science journals.
• To release deidentified data for transparency and further research into the peer review process.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 110,303 manuscript submissions over five years at *Science* and *Science Advances*.
• Examination of evaluation dynamics across initial editorial and subsequent peer review stages.
• Statistical analysis of factors influencing manuscript selection.

Main Results:

• Manuscript selection shows strong biases related to institutional prestige, team size, topics, and countries.
• Male corresponding authors have a small advantage; authors from China face a disadvantage.
• Biases are more pronounced in editorial review than peer review, despite strong correlation between reviewer advice and final decisions.

Conclusions:

• Multistage evaluation processes at elite journals are complex and influenced by various factors.
• The study underscores the importance of open data for scrutinizing and improving scientific review systems.
• Findings reveal potential systemic inequities within high-impact scientific publishing.