I read the rejections in the article as saying "I don't understand you" or more specifically "you haven't made your case" rather than "you're wrong." I don't t

I read the rejections in the article as saying "I don't understand you" or more specifically "you haven't made your case" rather than "you're wrong." I don't think they got to the point of deciding whether it was wrong or not. This might be more common in fields like physics, where it comes down to the math. If you can explain the math, and it seems flawless, then it is understandable and may be publishable. But it could still be wrong, in ways that could be verified by experiment.