This is actually not an ethical problem. It will become an ethical issue when, for example, the editor discriminates against certain groups of people. But if the peer reviewers expressed their views in good faith and the editors are not biased in their judgment, then there is nothing wrong in rejecting the paper. Otherwise the journal will have to accept any paper that is submitted. That might not be an ethical thing to do because that would mean that badly written or, worse, false papers will be published, which is a waste of printed paper and server space.

And about giving the author an opportunity to explain and defend their results, that depends on the editor. An editor may think that there is no further point in asking the author to defend their view because it is so out of line. There are no hard and fast rules on this.

very common practice in peer-reviewed journals.

It depends on the journal rules. But usually the journal's requirement is a 2 or 3 peer reviewers before the paper is accept or not to publication.

I am of the opinion that authors should be given a new opportunity to organise or correct the errors pointed out and that they should have a second chance.

There are two points os view. The first one is the personal when you need to answer if you like to get a second chance in a paper YOU write. The second is the journal rules. Sometimes the journal rules does not match yours, so you need to think if you are doing de right based on your convictions.

I am not sure if "ethical" is the right term here, but I know what you mean. Basically I would say it is fine to desk reject papers that suffer from serious flaws that cannot be fixed. After all, editors of good journals have to deal with a huge number of submissions and need to filter them. Unfortunately, much too often other factors (e.g., personal networks) also play an important role in the decision making process.

In my opinion, in the case of the rejection is necessary the explanation of the reasons of this rejection and if there is an approximation for the acceptance to be given an opportunity to the authors.

This is actually not an ethical problem. It will become an ethical issue when, for example, the editor discriminates against certain groups of people. But if the peer reviewers expressed their views in good faith and the editors are not biased in their judgment, then there is nothing wrong in rejecting the paper. Otherwise the journal will have to accept any paper that is submitted. That might not be an ethical thing to do because that would mean that badly written or, worse, false papers will be published, which is a waste of printed paper and server space.

And about giving the author an opportunity to explain and defend their results, that depends on the editor. An editor may think that there is no further point in asking the author to defend their view because it is so out of line. There are no hard and fast rules on this.

Yes it is ethical as all publishing is ethical. In publishing you only get to defend you results once published. If it is rejected it won't be published. The peer review isn't about defense, it is about correction (NEVER FORGET THAT).

The answer to this question depends entirely on the variables that are said in the journal's rules. Suppose the content is inconsistent with the general approach of the journal. So there is no need for the authors to be present. The author must also try to openly reveal his message in the text. If the text can not clearly defend the author's theory, it can not readily satisfy the reader of that article! Unless it is a completely new subject and a new approach, the presence of the author is necessary

Una revista parte de una serie de reglas, estándares y criterios que se supone el autor debe conocer y cumplir. Si estos estándares y criterios no se cumplen, el editor está en su pleno derecho de rechazar la publicación y ello no implica un dilema ético. Ahora bien, la revisión por pares es algo problemática, porque por lo general, más allá de las reglas de la revista, cada par revisor involucra en su revisión sus propios criterios y su visión paradigmática del tema tratado, por lo cual, siempre habrá un margen de error y subjetividad que podría ir en contra del autor. Por eso, entiendo que debe haber cierta flexibilidad que permita poder salvar posibles producciones con valor científico y académico innovador, dando oportunidad a su modificación por los autores.

The peer review system is not perfect and in many ways may not be fair. However an unrevised rejection isn't a problem. Justice, ethically speaking, necessitates treating likes alike. If the rejection is done based on clear rules that apply for everyone, then justice is not the issue.

To complete the picture, there is an ethical duty on the editors not to publish poorly written or poorly presented papers. I have been reading many manuscripts described by their authors as 'almost ready but needs some touches' BUT when I read them, they are at best an assignment submitted to a first year course. I don't want to be harsh but nothing harms scientists (especially junior and non-native, like myself) like unjustified self-confidence.

Rejection is what made me write better and made future publications easier.

I can't see a problem with this, unless the reviewer is rejecting the paper because of the characteristics of the authors, or some similar issue, rather than the quality of the paper. There are lots of journals, make some changes and try another.

No! It is a dark filter that censures research without an objective reason. The journalism should eliminaste this protocol