> The journal in 1992 had concluded that Ratcliffe's study was unfit for publication as the direction of research was something which was beyond their understan

> The journal in 1992 had concluded that Ratcliffe's study was unfit for publication as the direction of research was something which was beyond their understanding. I think that this is a fair reason for rejecting a paper... > “Given the discrepancy mentioned by reviewer 1, we have sadly concluded, on balance, that your paper would be better placed in a more specialised journal, particularly given the competition for space,” Yes, that's kind of good advice too...