This exchange (which I see all of the time) is killing my soul. Author: We present new and robust evidence that x causes y, which has important substantive implications that may lead to improving the lives of millions of individuals. PS Reviewers: You offer no novel theory. Reject.

Why does every paper have to offer a new theory of how the world works? Did we already establish all of the existing theories? Because I don't really think we have, and new and better evidence addressing open questions is probably good and should be valued.