When choosing where to submit their research for publication, most ecologists are concerned with journal impact factor, but they are also concerned with the likelihood that their manuscripts will be accepted. Based on a survey of ecologists, we found different degrees of relative concern for these journal attributes depending on author experience and gender. However, the ability of authors to choose among journals based on these journal attributes is limited: while journal impact factors are published regularly, journal rejection rates are not. We obtained, by permission, rejection rate data for a sample of 60 ecology journals for the year 2004. As expected, journals with higher impact factors also have higher rejection rates, but the ratio of [rejection rate] / [impact factor] increases sharply with decreasing impact factor below 1.76. Journals with impact factors below this value therefore provide relatively low payback in terms of impact against cost as estimated by rejection rate. We discuss alternative possible interpretations of this relationship and alternative criteria that might affect an author's decision about journal choice. Most importantly, our analysis indicates that the ability to make informed choices requires that journals publish their rejection rates annually.