I was speaking with a visiting colleague at one point, who was the editor of a big journal at that time, and I showed him some data. His response was ‘that's really interesting, but if you want to get it published in a major journal you need to come up with a cool story to go along with it, or some mechanism’.
To me, that's ridiculous. The data are what the data are. Scientists should strive to test hypotheses, with an emphasis on disproving their hypothesis, and their biggest efforts should be on accuracy and having proper controls. If the data do lead to a significant new mechanistic understanding, then that's great - but don't make one up to fit your data just so you can get it published in a more highly cited journal.
There's the 'problem'. He, as editor, is not interested in data, accuracy or hypothesis. His only interest is eyeballs. Sex sells. Cool sells. His job is to get new subscribers and as many as possible. If he could put a centerfold in the journal, he would..............He told you the truth.............
Add “global something” in the titles. That should cover it.