I wrote an article that I sent to be considered for publication for several journals. One prestigious journal rejected the article on the basis that it does not contribute to the common ground of scholarship of the contributors of the journal (they did not say that the article does not fall within their scope).
A second journal accepted the article for the same reason for which it has been rejected for by the first journal; one of the reviewers said that the article is not similar to anything in their altitudes that is why they think it would be a good contribution to the journal.
Where do you think academic journals stand regarding their motives or reasons for accepting and/or rejecting manuscripts? Should a researcher in a certain discipline go after innovation or should he go on the steps of those who preceded him?