Not really. Most rejections are of the types:
1. Spelling and grammar is terrible, not readable.
2. Mathematicsl mistakes abound, 2+2 isn't 6, it's not even 5 (which isn't even either.)
3a. The computations can't be replicated.
3b. The experiments can't be replicated.
4. The paper should be revised for minor errors and resubmitted.
5. The paper isn't suitable for this journal, try "The Journal of the Less Common Metals."
6. The observations of WWII bombers on the Moon were not verified.
Numbers 4 and 5 get published later anyway. The others are usually so bad as to be useless. You might be surprised what is submitted for publication. Most of the rejects really are sow's ears.
Whereas I do not doubt that a great many of the rejections are for cause, it is still distressing to know that the first paper on string theory was rejected, that Einstein never had to endure peer review, nor did Heisenberg or Bohr who were published on the strength of their credentials.
Among the Nobel prize winners whose papers were initially rejected: Yalow and Blobel. Feigenbaum's chaos theory was repeatedly rejected. Hawking’s paper on black holes was rejected by Nature.
The common complaint is that theories which run against the accepted view are often rejected.
IMHO, that is not a good thing. A scientists' credentials ought to be enough to allow him a public hearing.