The standard peer review process is very much stacked against outsiders with a really new perspective, because peer review is a committee decision, and that committee is generally staffed by conservative reviewers whose entire careers have been built upon the older paradigm. They are therefore the least likely to see the merits of a radically new approach, that would challenge the validity of their own life's work. Furthermore in the case of a mixed review, the editors always seem to give more weight to the negative reveiws because they have more to lose by publishing a theory that discredits the reputation of their journal, than they have to gain by taking a chance on a scientific unknown. The more radical the proposed theory, the greater the risk to their reputation, and the smaller the chance that the theory could possibly be right. Under these circumstances, rejection is the path of least resistance.
For an interesting analysis of the hidden motivations in science see Brian Martin on Strategies for Dissenting Scientists