Over at the sometimes i’m wrong blog, psychologist Michael Inzlicht tells A Tale of Two Papers.
Inzlicht describes how, as associate editor at the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, he rejected a certain manuscript. He did so despite the fact that the peer review reports had been very positive. The article reported 7 studies, all of which found nice, statistically significant evidence for the hypothesis in question.
So why reject it? Because, to Inzlicht, it was just too good
Source: Discover Magazine