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how scientists' differential responses to manuscript rejection shape both published knowledge and the “file drawer” of unpublished research.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. Although exploratory surveys of rejected authors are inconclusive, our empirical analyses implicate geographic differences in access to procedural knowledge – how to interpret feedback, revise a manuscript, and resubmit elsewhere. Specifically, post-rejection outcomes are better for corresponding authors with more access to procedural knowledge, such as authors with prior publishing experience or Western co-authors. These findings imply that the “file drawer” contains a disproportionate number of ideas from non-Western countries, partly due to disparities in procedural knowledge.
