Reject, reject, reject...
Publish or perish: the perils of peer review (like democracy: a seriously deficient process, but it's the best we have...or is it?)

Oh well, at times like this I turn to Nietzsche:
 (was ihn nicht umbringt, macht ihn stärker)
What does not kill him, makes him stronger.

Or, perhaps, an inverse Gore Vidal moment:
Whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies

Jackie Leven:
Eternal is the warrior who finds beauty in his wounds

Arthur Koestler:
The more original a discovery, the more obvious it seems afterward

Howard H. Aiken has summarised perfectly:
Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas.
If it’s original, you’ll have to ram it down their throats

What were the reviewers thinking?

Notice how the reviews  are often logical complements of each other, and therefore mutually incompatible. 
Perhaps one criticizes the lack of mathematical detail, then another the profusion of mathematical detail.
The ubiquitous spiral

Both reviewers are agreed; my algorithm works in practice, but not in (their) theory.

First published synthetic fingerprint image
                    with spiral phases

Reviewer 1 likes it. 
Reviewer 2
knows how to kill a short letter by asking for so much more than can be encapsulated in the format.
Four corrugated Mellin
                  Patterns and Fourier transform

Chronicle of a rejection foretold