We investigated how new ideas become accepted for Nobel laureates in science. Archival data were collected for 204 Nobel laureates from 1980 to 2009 in physics, chemistry, and medicine or physiology. Acceptance was evaluated for Nobel laureates by Prize area and three key publications in the Nobel laureates' publishing careers: (a) first publication concerning their Nobel idea (FN), (b) highest cited publication concerning their Nobel idea (HN), and (c) last publication concerning their Nobel idea (LN). Acceptance was defined primarily in terms of academic prestige for the journal articles (journal impact factors, article citation counts, Eigenfactor scores [journal impact and journal citations] and journal-cited half-life ratings). We found that acceptance for these publications mostly followed LN < FN < HN for all measures and Prize areas--except for physics on impact factor only, which followed FN < LN < HN, as hypothesized. In sum, recent ideas are least accepted rather than original ideas even for established and eminent Nobel laureates.