Yup, if you are actually doing good work it is likely to be so different to what is going on that people have a hard time evaluating it.
My mom has helped many PhD students take their degree over the years, and in the process helped with their papers. Several have been rejected, some multiple times. Frequently it was down to presentation issues (the student had not explained the certain things clearly enough or similar), or there was disagreement about how strong conclusions one could draw from the results.
For example, recently a paper was rejected because the experimenters had forgotten or overlooked an important detail which meant they couldn't control for a certain variable. One of the reviewers picked this up, and rejected the paper because the findings could possibly be explained by this uncontrolled variable. So they had to resubmit with a weaker conclusion (this is when my mom got involved).
In this case the review process was harsh but fair. The experimenters had goofed, and the reviewer caught it.
Of course when doing ground breaking experiments, I guess the process might not be optimal. But the majority of scientists are not doing that.
Basically there are lots of reasons to get rejected that have nothing to do with the quality or validity of the research.
I suggested there were ways to approach writing it for that audience, but they'd need to extensively rework the paper. The reason I know that? I've done the same thing, for the same journal.
A simpler and more elegant solution is hard for the old guard to take in. You are sweeping away years of knowledge that they have built up about their earth-centred universe to propose an all new sun-centred solar system.
If you are in the position of having written some work that is ahead of its time then how do you know that? Rejection isn't good enough. The reasons why are important. If you have not presented your work neatly or used language that others don't like then that won't help. If you haven't talked about some of the smaller points that the learned people think are important about the topic then you could be done for. We need something more than 'rejection', failed for presentation reasons could be helpful so we can know if the jury is out of some 'rejected' ideas.
Nothing ever gets rejected for being twenty years ahead of its time. It would be helpful if this was an option.
One feature of peer review that's overlooked, is that there are different journals with different standards, and you can choose a journal that fits what you're trying to accomplish.