system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Do high-impact journals discriminate against scientist from less prestigious universities?

I have heard many stories in which different scientist described how their previously "unpublishable" article have been miraculously transformed to publishable without changing single word in the text, just by adding a better known author (or author from prestigous institution). Furthermore, I have met several people who were convinced that the top journals like Nature or Science won`t even seriously consider manuscript submission if it has no author from "prestigious" university. Do you think there is some truth to this opinions or is it only something what people tell themselves to fell better when they do not succeed?
gpt
There's a lot of "trust me" in any manuscript publication.

We need to trust that:  

1. No deliberate fraud has been conducted  
2. Experiments were designed well by someone who has an expert knowledge in all of the subject areas and techniques relevant to this work (understanding necessary controls, limitations, etc)  
3. Interpretation of the data as presented in the manuscript is truly justified by the data, and by taking into consideration all relevant limitations, alternatives, etc

Peer-review is supposed to catch these issues when they are noticed, but not all peer reviewers are capable of expert-level, confident review of all aspects of a paper they may be handling. Or, to rigorously check each detail would require far more time than they are willing or able to expend. Peer review is best at catching things when something raises a "red flag" to them - not because they spend hours poring over the materials and methods to ensure your buffers and computational parameters are correct (unless the result contingent on these is highly unexpected).

So, putting a reputation on the line for a given set of work (authorship) where that reputation actually matters (recognized field expertise, prestigious institution, other ways the field "vouches" for that person as reliable)... well, either a little, or a lot, more faith is put into the manuscript's publish-ability. You assume that people in positions of acknowledged and visible expertise will only put their name on work that they think is good. You don't know jack about what Dr. Jones from Unknown Rural College might put his/her name on.

There's also a noticeable trend towards high profile publications presenting the cumulative result of a significant financial and resource investment - lots of samples, access to rare samples, flashy technology, consortium-level number of people providing their expertise, etc. Less prestigious scholars at low prestige universities may only have a few thousand bucks and some summer undergrads at their disposal. There's no way their output could compare.

There's also a lot of importance to relationships in academia. A scholar at a well-funded, high profile institution is more likely to have had the opportunity to meet editors of high profile publications, attended conferences with people who may be more willing to act as their peer-reviewers, chances to present their work and receive feedback from other international experts, etc. High profile papers often are aided by a pre-submission inquiry to the editor from the author ("would you be interested in this?"), and a known person (even a second-degree "known") may have more goodwill than a total stranger.