Unmasking Favoritism and Bias in Academic Publishing: An Empirical Study on Editorial Practices

This study investigates the impact of institutional bias on academic publishing, focusing on how manuscript acceptance rates, review times, and the diversity of scholarly discourse are influenced by the institutional affiliation of authors. Through a mixed-methods approach, the study combines quantitative analysis of 2,000 manuscript submissions across 20 journals with qualitative interviews of editors, reviewers, and authors. The findings reveal a statistically significant bias favoring manuscripts from prestigious institutions, evidenced by higher acceptance rates and faster review processes. However, while institutional prestige significantly influences these outcomes, the quality of the research also plays a crucial role, indicating that bias operates alongside other factors. The study also highlights the negative impact of institutional bias on the diversity of published research, with manuscripts from less prestigious institutions contributing more to geographical and topical diversity. The implications are profound and suggest that current editorial practices may reinforce existing academic power structures and limit the representation of diverse perspectives. The study calls for reforms such as double-blind review processes and greater transparency in editorial decision-making to promote a more equitable and inclusive academic publishing environment. These findings are essential for advancing a global and diverse scholarly communication system.