Peer review is vital for research validation, but may be affected by “status bias,” the unequal treatment of papers written by prominent and less-well-known authors. We studied this bias by sending a research paper jointly authored by a Nobel Prize laureate and a relatively unknown early career research associate to many reviewers. We varied whether the prominent author’s name, the relatively unknown author’s name, or no name was revealed to reviewers. We found clear evidence for bias. More than 20% of the reviewers recommended “accept” when the Nobel laureate was shown as the author, but less than 2% did so when the research associate was shown. Our findings contribute to the debate of how best to organize the peer-review process.