It's a good paper that I worked very hard on, but there are relatively few exemplars in its disciplinary space. So I went to a journal which some years ago published a paper I cite heavily in this paper.
I've just had a desk reject and am desolate, because I've been working incredibly hard under difficult conditions (not being paid at present). I missed a deadline for a very important something else by prioritising this submission.
The worst part is that I'm applying for posts right now and was counting on having it under review. I won't have time to get it back out before the closing date. It might seem that it was badly-targeted and I did a bad job pitching it to the editor. But it wasn't, and I didn't. The cover letter was very careful, linking editorial aims & objectives to the abstract and pointing out the connections via the literature etc etc.
The journal is explicitly cross-disciplinary and publishes some reasonably good work but is not what I would see as truly excellent. It was already a compromise to go there. The paper has had mixed reviews from two leading journals, but I took heart from the positive reviews being very positive, and I did address everything in the negative reviews.
Because I've now ended up overcommitting time to this paper I took the conceptual and technical difficulty up a couple of levels and thought that just improving it (as everyone advises) would be the solution.
Would a polite reply (taking a few days to calm down) that six weeks is unduly slow and unfair on scholars be too passive-aggressive? I thought I would also offer to join their stable of reviewers to look constructive. I'm on editorial boards so I know it's hard and thankless work, but desk-rejecting is not the hardest part of it and should be done quickly.