“We develop a new model of rejection rates at journals. We assume that authors with papers of heterogenous quality choose from an array of journals of varying calibers. A publication with twice the caliber is worth twice as much to the author. Journals promise an acceptance bar and an eventual quality of accepted papers.

In the unique rational expectations equilibrium, rejection rates are hump-shaped in caliber, and rejection losses are maximized for journals of intermediate calibers — not the highest or lowest. This shows that journal rankings based on selectivity are inherently flawed. This logic intuitive extends to college rankings. “