Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: A literature survey



Palabras clave:

Acceptance rates, Rejection rates, Scholarly journals, Peer-review, Literature survey, Quality, Impact factor, Subscription journals, Open access, Predatory journals, Scholarly communication.


The acceptance rate of scholarly journals is an important selection criterion for authors choosing where to submit their manuscripts. Unfortunately, information about the acceptance (or rejection rates) of individual journals is seldom available. This article surveys available systematic information and studies of acceptance rates. The overall global average is around 35-40%. There are significant differences between fields of science, with biomedicine having higher acceptance rates compared to for instance the social sciences. Open access journals usually have higher acceptance rates than subscription journals, and this is particularly true for so-called OA mega-journals, which have peer review criteria focusing on sound science only.


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.


Aarssen, Lonnie W.; Tregenza, Tom; Budden, Amber; Lortie, Christopher J.; Koricheva, Julia; Leimu, Roosa (2008). "Bang for your buck: Rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals". The open ecology journal, n. 1, pp. 14-19.

Abby, Margaret; Massey, Michael D.; Galandiuk, Susan; Polk, Hiram C. (1994). "Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts". JAMA, v. 272, n. 2, pp. 105-107.

Agrawal, Anurag A. (2014). "Four more reasons to be skeptical of open-access publishing". Cell press, v. 19, n. 3, P133.

APA (2017). "Summary report of journal operations, 2016". American psychologist, v. 72, n. 5, pp. 499-500.

Beall, Jeffrey (2010). "´Predatory´ open-access publishers". The Charleston Advisor, April 2010.

Binfield, Peter (2012). "Open access megajournals - have they changed everything?". Blog post, Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand.

Bjí¶rk, Bo-Christer (2015). "Have the "˜mega-journals´ reached the limits to growth?". PeerJ, n. 3, e981.

Bjí¶rk, Bo-Christer (2017). "Growth of hybrid open access, 2009-2016". PeerJ, n. 5, e3878.

Bjí¶rk, Bo-Christer (2018). "Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals". Online information review. Early cite.

Bjí¶rk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (2012). "Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine, v. 10, n. 73.

Bjí¶rk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (2013). "The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals". Journal of informetrics, v. 7, n. 4, pp. 914-923.

Bohannon, John (2013). "Who´s afraid of peer review". Science, v. 342, n. 6154, pp. 60-65.

Butcher, James (2013). "Hybrid journals at Nature Publishing Group". Coasp conference, Riga, Latvia, 19.9.2013.

Callaway, Ewen (2016). "Open-access journal eLife gets £25-million boost". Nature news, 1.6.2016.

Da-Silva, Pascal-Rocha (2015). "Selecting for impact: new data debunks old beliefs". Frontiers blog, 21.12.2015.

Da-Silva, Pascal-Rocha (2016a). Selecting for impact data_20160106, data set.

Da-Silva, Pascal-Rocha (2016b). New data debunks old beliefs: Part 2, Selecting for impact: new data debunks old beliefs, Frontiers blog, 4.3.2016.

Dickersin, Kay (1990). "The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence". Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 263, n. 10, pp. 1385-1389.

Edgar, Brian D.; Willinsky, John (2010). "A survey of scholarly journals using open journal system". Scholarly and research communication, v. 1, n. 2.

Elsevier (2019). Elsevier journal finder.

Frank, Erica (1994). "Authors´ criteria for selecting journals". Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 272, n. 2, pp. 163-164.

Gilbert, Natasha (2009). "Editor will quit over hoax paper. Computer-generated manuscript accepted for publication in open-access journal". Nature news, 15.6.2009.

Grant, William D.; Cone, David C. (2015). "If at first you don´t succeed: The fate of manuscripts rejected by Academic Emergency Medicine". Academic emergency medicine, v. 22, n. 10, pp. 1213-1217.

Hindawi (2017). Case reports in pathology, home pages.

Kaufman-Wills Group (2005). The facts about open access. Study commissioned by the ALPSP, AAAS and High-Wire Press, The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.

Khosravi, Mohammad R. (2018). "Reliability of scholarly journal acceptance rates". Library hi tech news, v. 35, n. 10, pp. 7-8.

Kling, Rob; McKim, Geoffrey (2000). "Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication". Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v. 51, n. 14, pp. 1306-1320.;2-T

Lamb, Christopher R.; Adams, Clifford A. (2014). "Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012". Equine veterinary journal, v. 47, n. 6, pp. 736-740.

PNAS (2017). "Author frequently asked questions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), website.

Salinas, Santiago; Munch, Stephan B. (2015). "Where should I send it? Optimizing the submission decision process". PLoS one, v. 10, n. 1, e0115451.

Schultz, David M. (2010). "Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 91, n. 2, pp. 231-243.

Shen, Cenyu; Bjí¶rk, Bo-Christer (2015). ""˜Predatory´ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics". BMC Medicine, v. 13, n. 230.

Smahel, David; Daneback, Kristian; Dedkova, Lenka (2014). "Editorial: How to increase probability of manuscript acceptance". Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, v. 8, n. 2, p. 1.

SpringerNature (2019). Journal suggester.

Stephen, Timothy D. (2012). "Helping communication programs represent their strength". The electronic journal of communication, v. 22, n. 1-2, pp. 1-6.

Sugimoto, Cassidy; Lariviére, Vincent; Ni, Chaoqun; Cronin, Blaise (2013). "Journal acceptance rates: a cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures". Journal of informetrics, v. 7, n. 4, pp. 897-906.

Tenopir, Carol; Dalton, Elizabeth; Fish, Allison; Christian, Lisa; Jones, Misty; Smith, MacKenzie (2016). "What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice". Publications, n. 4, e22.

Thomson Reuters (2012). Global publishing: Changes in submission trends and the impact on scholarly publishers. White paper, Thomson Reuters.

Wakeling, Simon; Willett, Peter; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Pinfield, Stephen; Spezi, Valérie (2016). "Open-access mega-journals: a bibliometric profile". PLoS one, n. 11, e0165359.

Ware, Mark (2008). "Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives". PRC Summary papers 4, Public Research Consortium, London, UK.

Weller, Ann (2001). "Editorial peer review, its strengths and weaknesses". ASIST Monograph series. Information Today, Inc., Medford, New Jersey. ISBN: 1 57387 100 1




Cómo citar

Bjí¶rk, B.-C. (2019). Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: A literature survey. Profesional De La información, 28(4).



Artí­culos de investigación / Research articles