Yes, and specifically with the Foundation of Physics. Exactly the same kind of outcome. It gets rather tedious. I do not understand this 'I'm not convinced' rebuttal. Like that is some sort of formal argument measure. I would prefer "Not obviously wrong" as an acceptance criteria. I couldn't care less whether any particular reviewer is 'convinced' or otherwise. If they can't formally identifiy flawed or uninformed arguments then they should leave their personal preferences out of it.

The net result of this kind of behaviour is cherry picking/band-wagoning/fashion and fragmented special-interest journals instead of science.  Maybe we need a special therapy group for those of us who remain 'unable to convince' while never being told we are wrong and why.....

regards,

Colin Hales