Journal Acceptance Rates: What They Tell You

One percentage gets quoted as proof of prestige, yet journals count it in different ways and few of them say how they did it.

Explainer · 9 min read · Directive Publications Editorial Team

What an acceptance rate measures

A journal acceptance rate is the share of submitted manuscripts that a journal accepts for publication. The rejection rate is the same figure seen from the other side: a journal that accepts 15% of submissions rejects 85%, provided both are counted on the same base and every manuscript ends in one or the other.

That proviso is where the trouble starts. An acceptance rate is a fraction, and the journal decides what goes on the top and the bottom. It measures demand against one journal's space and standards over one period. It does not measure how carefully papers are reviewed, how often the journal is cited, or how your manuscript will fare.

Few journals publish it at all. A literature survey of acceptance-rate studies by Bo-Christer Björk notes that rates for individual journals are seldom available, and that many editors who announce one do not say how they calculated it.

The first decision rule follows: a rate with no stated method is a rough band, not a measurement. Read 12% and 18% from two different journals as "both selective", not as a six-point gap.

Why two journals' figures rarely compare

There is no agreed standard for the calculation. A large cross-disciplinary analysis by Sugimoto and colleagues, covering 5,094 journals, summarises the complications: inconsistent definitions of a resubmission, whether invited papers or special issues are counted, the timeframe used, and the unreliability of figures editors report themselves. Björk adds another. One set of field data in his survey excluded manuscripts withdrawn by authors or transferred to other journals, and including them would have lowered the rates.

Each of these choices moves the number:

• Article types. Mixing letters, editorials and invited pieces in with original research changes the result.
• Resubmissions. If a revised manuscript is logged as a new submission, the denominator grows while the journal publishes nothing extra.
• Time window. Papers accepted this year were often submitted last year, so dividing one year's acceptances by the same year's submissions is an approximation.
• Withdrawn and transferred papers. Leaving them out removes manuscripts that did not end in acceptance.
• The denominator itself. All submissions, all manuscripts with a decision, or only those sent for review.

JAMA shows how much the article-type choice alone matters. At the time of writing, JAMA's own instructions for authors state that its acceptance rate "is 10% of the more than 12,700 annual submissions and 4% of the more than 5,700 research manuscripts received." Same journal, two accurate figures, and the research figure is less than half the overall one. Check which one you are being quoted.

A worked example

Take an imaginary journal. In one calendar year it receives 2,000 manuscripts. It rejects 1,000 without review and sends 1,000 to reviewers. By the end of the year, 250 have been accepted, 650 rejected after review, and 100 are still in review.

Now log 200 returning revisions as new submissions, and the first figure drops to about 11% (250 ÷ 2,200). The journal's standards are identical in every version, yet the reported rate runs from 11% to 25%.

The lesson for authors: desk rejection removes many manuscripts early, and Björk gives typical reasons: the paper is out of scope, has substandard language and presentation, or lacks scientific significance. A paper that clearly fits the journal is not competing with the off-scope part of that pile, so the headline figure is a poor estimate of its chances.

Where to find a journal's acceptance rate

Look in this order, and note the source and period next to any figure you record.

1. The journal's own pages. Check the author information, about and editorial policy pages, and search the journal's editorials, where some editors publish annual submission statistics.
2. Publisher tools. Elsevier's Journal Finder can display an acceptance rate, which Elsevier defines as accepted manuscripts compared with submissions per calendar year. Many Springer Nature journal pages show a median time from submission to first decision instead.
3. Subscription directories. Cabells Journalytics includes acceptance rates alongside review and publication times. Ask your library whether it subscribes.
4. The editorial office. If nothing is published, ask: "Could you tell me the journal's acceptance rate for original research, the period it covers, and whether it is calculated against all submissions or only those sent for review?"

Treat figures on third-party websites that do not name the journal or publisher as their source as unverified. Directory data deserve care too: in the Sugimoto study, the directory figures were supplied by editors and not independently verified, and almost three in ten journals gave a range or no figure instead of an exact rate.

Selectivity vs quality: what a low rate does not prove

A low acceptance rate tells you that far more manuscripts arrive than the journal publishes. Several things drive that besides the rigour of review:

• Visibility. Well-known journals attract authors aiming high, including many whose papers do not fit. Sugimoto and colleagues point out that elite journals can expect many more submissions than they can publish.
• Size and age. In the same data, journals that published more articles had higher acceptance rates, and younger journals tended to have higher rates than older ones.
• Review criteria. PLOS ONE says it evaluates research "on the basis of scientific validity, strong methodology, and high ethical standards—not perceived significance." Journals that review for soundness rather than importance accept a larger share by design, and Björk reports that a study of 12 such megajournals found acceptance rates of 50–55%.

What about citations? Sugimoto and colleagues found negative correlations between acceptance rates and citation-based measures, but described them as weak, with the clearest relationship among the most selective journals. Björk's survey concluded that the evidence on this link is contradictory. Neither supports reading a lower rate as proof of a better journal, and neither says anything about an individual article.

The decision rule: use selectivity to set expectations, and judge quality separately, by the review process, the editorial board, indexing claims you can verify, and the papers the journal has published recently. Our guide to choosing the right journal sets out those checks in order.

Senior authors should avoid one further use. When you write a promotion case, assess a CV or advise a junior colleague, do not cite a journal's acceptance rate as evidence that an article is good. The rate belongs to the journal and says nothing about what the article contributed, so describe the contribution instead.

When a high acceptance rate is a warning sign

A high rate on its own is not one. Björk's survey found that biomedicine tends to have higher acceptance rates than the social sciences, and that open access journals usually have higher rates than subscription journals. Add soundness-only review, and plenty of legitimate journals accept a large share of what they receive.

The warning signs are about process, not the ratio:

• acceptance guaranteed, or promised within a fixed number of days
• an acceptance letter with no reviewer reports, or reports with no substance
• no clear description of how peer review works or who handles your paper
• a request for payment before any review has taken place

Notice what questionable outlets tend to advertise. Björk observes that acceptance rates are hard to find for predatory journals, which tend instead to publicise very short times from submission to publication. Speed alone is not a problem, but a promise of publication within days leaves no time for anyone to read your paper properly. Our list of 12 red flags for predatory journals covers the other checks.

If a journal's rate is very high and you cannot find a credible description of its review process, stop there. If the process is clearly described, check whether the journal reviews for soundness and whether that suits your paper.

Using the number in a submission plan

An acceptance rate is most useful for planning a sequence of journals, not for picking a winner. At a selective journal, rejection is the likeliest outcome, and Björk describes circumstantial evidence that most initially rejected manuscripts are eventually published elsewhere. Plan for that before you submit.

Before you rely on a figure, confirm:

1. It comes from the journal, its publisher or a directory, not an uncredited website
2. You know the year or period it covers
3. You know whether it covers all article types or research papers only
4. You know whether the denominator is all submissions or only reviewed manuscripts
5. You have the journal's time to first decision, and how that is defined
6. Your paper clearly fits the journal's scope, whatever the rate

The definition of speed matters as much as the definition of acceptance. Publishers do not define a first decision the same way. SAGE, for example, counts the first editorial decision as a desk rejection, a referral to another journal or the invitation of peer reviewers, so a short median does not always mean a quick answer on your paper. Check what the journal in front of you means by the term before you read anything into the figure.

Order your shortlist by fit first and selectivity second, and write down where the paper goes next before the first decision arrives. If a rejection does come, read what changed in revisions that went from rejection to acceptance before you reformat for the next journal.

The better question to ask

An acceptance rate answers one question: how crowded is this journal? The questions that decide what happens to your paper are different. Does it fit the journal's scope and readership? Is the review process described, and does it involve real reviewers? When a journal quotes a rate, ask for the method. When it does not, spend the time on fit and process, because those are things you can check and act on.

Directive Publications sets out its peer review process step by step, including the checks a manuscript passes before external review, and its author guidelines cover article types and preparation, so you can judge fit and process directly rather than through a single number.