Short abstract

Whose papers end up in the file-drawer? Tracking 126K papers rejected by 62 physics journals reveals that authors from Western countries are more likely to ultimately publish these papers, and to publish faster and with less revising. A potential mechanism is access to procedural knowledge.

Long abstract

Scientific progress relies on making research contributions public, typically through journal publication, enabling others to build on them. However, publishing often requires overcoming one or more rejections. This study examines how scientists' differential responses to manuscript rejection shape both published knowledge and the “file drawer” of unpublished research. Analyzing 126K manuscripts rejected by 62 STEM journals published by the Institute of Physics Publishing, we document several new empirical facts. Controlling for manuscript quality (proxied by peer review recommendations) and comparing authors from Western and non-Western countries, we find that authors based in Western countries are 5.9% more likely to publish rejected manuscripts elsewhere, publish 25 days faster, revise 6% less, and change co-authors 11.6% less. A plausible contributing mechanism is geographic differences in access to procedural knowledge – how to interpret feedback from these journals, revise, and resubmit elsewhere. Although exploratory surveys of rejected authors are inconclusive, we find that post-rejection outcomes are better for corresponding authors with prior publishing experience and Western co-authors, both of which may proxy procedural knowledge. These findings imply that the “file drawer” contains a disproportionate number of ideas from non-Western countries, partly due to disparities in procedural knowledge.