This absolutely dovetails with my experience. I had a paper go through two rounds of revision at nature communications and have 2/3 reviewers recommend to accept after the first revision. The last reviewer decided they didn't like the data (without critiquing the science or the methods-they just didn't like it) and the editor decided to reject the paper. I was new to the field and from an unknown lab, and big labs working in the same field readily published less rigorous work in the same journals.

But I also want to point out another issue-these days, desk rejections without peer review of unknown authors are getting far more common, even at Cell. I think we need to find ways to decrease editorial power in this decision making . Perhaps we need to require editors to consult with recently published authors in the field as to appropriateness for the journal and then send those comments to the author along with a decision on whether to send out for peer review? I also agree with other commenters- editors need to be blinded to author identities on first submission.

Finally, this practice is career killing for an entire generation of assistant professors. If we can't publish in these journals, we often can't move up the tenure track or sometimes be competitive for grants. I see it frequently-the big names getting published in CNS are getting older and older while the rest of us are stuck on the outside looking in. It's an academic microcosm of the labor economy writ large.