I have recently been asked to review a manuscript from a journal whose impact factor is between 1 and 2. I thought the paper is quite nice. Although findings presented in the paper are not so big, the aim of the study was reasonable, the descriptive data they obtained have revealed the previously unknown situation of the group of organisms, presentation of the results were clear and concise, and discussion was coherent. So, I recommended to accept it for publication.
In the following week, however, I was noticed from the journal office that this paper was rejected. The reason is that the other reviewer (there were only two reviewers for this manuscript) gave a negative opinion. I read the comments of this reviewer. It seems to me that this reviewer is trying to measure the paper against "gold standard of excellence".
It is of course "better" to follow the highest standard. But, in my opinion, it is not always necessary to pay enormous effort to slightly increase its accuracy, because time, energy and money we can spend is limited. Researchers have many things to do and we should always choose what to do. It is of course important for reviewers to be strict when necessary, but I think "unbalanced" evaluation may sometimes slow down the pace of progress in our scientific community.
