Blogchild John Bruce has a nice list of reasons why manuscripts are turned down by editors. A study of economists showed that many had tales of woe of their rejections. Paul Krugman reported in the study that his rejection rate was 60%.

I assume that my rejection rate is unusually high for a generally successful economist. I've tried to figure out why. The self-serving answer is that my stuff is so incredibly innovative that people don't get the point. More likely, I somehow rub referees and editors the wrong way, maybe by claiming more originality than I really have. Whatever the cause, I still open return letters from journals with fear and trembling, and more often than not get bad news.

This was said long before he joined the editorialists of the New York Times; perhaps the Times could re-impose that 60% rule?

John's list reminds me of the "Keys to the Reading of Research Literature" (scroll to bottom), that I had always ascribed to George Stigler but perhaps not? I have had those on my bulletin board for at least a decade, but I can't tell who the source was. Leads welcome.