A couple of years I found a gap in the literature in a field I work in. Work had been done in a tangential area, but I recognized this gap. Wrote a paper, and it did the rounds, with some referees, saying that this work has already been done (and referencing the tangential literature).
Long story short, ultimately the paper got published decently and so did two other follow-up papers. I guess I managed to convince enough people that my work was different - I take the good publications as a stamp that my position was correct.
Now, I wrote another article on this same issue and solidly references my previous papers. Here comes another referee saying that this problem has already been tackled, referencing the tangential literature. How the hell can they do so (I know they can and do, I'm just venting here), when I have copiously referenced my earlier well published work which demonstrates that this line of work is different from what they are referencing?
Should not editors double check this, as all this is there in my paper, especially if the referees comments form the basis of rejection?
