It is often charged in academic circles that the only way to get one's work published in many learned journals is to work for a prestigious institution. Now some research by two North Dakota psychologists indicates that the charge has merit. Douglas P. Peters and Stephen J. Ceci picked eight papers that had already been published in eight leading journals, substituted fictitious authors and affiliations for the real authors and their high-status institutions, and resubmitted them to the same journals. Only three were spotted. Of 10 psychologists assigned to review the others, eight said they were not worth publishing. And there was no doubt in many cases -- reviewers used phrases like "serious methodological difficulties," "not . . . a significant contribution" and "pretty trivial." The North Dakota study was presented at a meeting in England, and reported in Psychology Today. But so far, its authors have not been able to find a journal willing to publish it. Peters and Ceci say their study indicates "a rather massive lack of reliability" in the review process and "some support for claims of insitutional bias." They suggest that possibly "the original authors of our bogus papers received a less critical, more forgiving evaluation than did our pseudonymous authors from no-name institutions."