Why do some reviewers reject more papers than others?

Publishing in a prestigious academic journal is not easy. In the field of management, rejection rates typically range between 90% and 95%. But what determines whether a reviewer recommends accepting or rejecting a paper?

At the outset, the authors of the study On the determinants of journal rejection rates: Evidence from the Journal of Financial Economics asked a simple question: “Sometimes we wonder with colleagues whether it is better to get a junior or a senior reviewer,” says co-author Pavel Král from the Faculty of Management at the Prague University of Economics and Business.

Two competing hypotheses

The authors considered two competing theories. The first assumed that more experienced reviewers would be stricter due to their expertise. In other words, senior reviewers are so experienced that they overlook no mistakes, whereas junior reviewers may lack such sharpness.

The second theory suggests the opposite: junior reviewers may actually be stricter. They are still “finding their footing” and often feel the need to prove they can identify errors—something that may result in harsher evaluations.

What did the data show?

The study, published in Financial Innovation, offers a unique glimpse behind the scenes of one of the world’s most prestigious finance journals—the Journal of Financial Economics (JFE). The authors analyzed aggregated data from nearly 24,000 referee reports by more than 1,900 reviewers between 1994 and 2020, focusing on a key question: Does a reviewer’s experience influence their willingness to accept a paper?

The data provide a surprisingly clear answer. Reviewers who have completed more reports are more likely to recommend acceptance.

“The more experience a reviewer has with the peer review process, the less likely they are to recommend rejection. This effect persists even after accounting for other factors such as the reviewer’s age, publication success, citation count, university affiliation, or editorial board membership,” explains Pavel Král. The authors therefore suggest that experience with evaluating manuscripts may lead to a more balanced and constructive approach.

The research was conducted in the context of one of the most prestigious finance journals—the Journal of Financial Economics, widely considered a top-tier publication. In less prestigious journals, the dynamics may differ. The authors themselves caution that their findings cannot be directly generalized to the entire publication system.

Other factors influencing reviewers’ decisions

The study also shows that other reviewer characteristics play a role. The following groups are more likely to recommend acceptance:

• older reviewers,

• graduates and staff of prestigious universities,

• reviewers with a higher number of (and highly cited) publications.

An interesting factor is the field of doctoral study. Reviewers with PhDs in economics, mathematics, physics, or engineering are more likely to recommend acceptance than those with PhDs in finance. By contrast, no consistent differences were found based on gender or nationality.

An exception: highly successful authors

Another intriguing finding concerns the “stars” of the field. Reviewers who themselves publish very successfully in the Journal of Financial Economics and whose articles are highly cited are—under otherwise identical conditions—more likely to recommend rejection. This may indicate stricter standards among those who publish at the highest level. In other words: the more successful the author, the more demanding the reviewer.

What does this mean for the academic community?

Peer review is a fundamental mechanism of the scientific system. It influences:

• publication success,

• grant funding,

• career progression,

• and even the direction of entire fields.

The study shows that reviewers’ decisions are neither random nor purely individual. They are systematically influenced by experience with the process itself.

This leads to several practical implications:

1. Editors should consider combining experienced and less experienced reviewers.

2. Early-career reviewers may benefit from mentoring.

3. The academic community should openly discuss the calibration of evaluation standards.

A good example of best practice is the AMR Bridge Reviewer Program within the Academy of Management, which involves early-career researchers in the review process. These new reviewers can gradually learn and gain experience—for example, as additional (fourth) reviewers who are not primary evaluators but contribute feedback on manuscripts.

The Academy of Management also actively addresses this topic at its conferences, encouraging discussions on the quality of peer review, sharing best practices, and calibrating evaluation standards across the academic community.

The role of reviewers in the scientific system

The study highlights that the quality of the scientific system cannot be separated from the people who shape it. If peer review is to function not only as a filter but also as a tool for improving research quality, it is essential to pay attention to how reviewers are selected, supported, and professionally developed.

It is precisely the combination of experience, diversity, and open discussion that can strengthen trust in a process that lies at the very core of modern science.

Reference:

Hrazdil, K., Král, P., Novak, J., & Suwanyangyuan, N. (2026). On the determinants of journal rejection rates: evidence from the Journal of Financial Economics. Financial Innovation, 12(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-026-00908-x

Full study available at: On the determinants of journal rejection rates: evidence from the Journal of Financial Economics | Financial Innovation | Springer Nature Link