Papers contrary to the conventional wisdom are often rejected without any substantive response, that is without any discussion of what's wrong or any citation too contradictory evidence. Not only that referees who are biased against the author or his subject Will often drag their heels for up to a year. I once had a hard math paper stalled for a year only to get no substantive response. When I complained to the editor (of Communications in Mathematical Physics) he published it within days and I still never saw a substantive review. Whole fields are kept as cargo cult science by never offering a substantive review to papers against the prevailing dogma.
Here is a discussion of some of these problems in philosophy: