My manuscript, submitted to a high-rank and very respectable journal, has been rejected by a referee. From the referee's report one could make a conjecture that the referee is one of my competitors, whose results are far inferior to mine. A second referee also rejected my work by giving an absurd argument. It is not an emotional exaggeration, the absurdity of the second referee's argument should be obvious to anybody graduating a university. The editors agreed with such reports, despite the fact that all my arguments have been completely ignored by the referees. I appealed and my manuscript was considered by one of the associate editors. And now is the most interesting part.
The associate editor agreed with the referees and added his own argument against my work. But in this case his real name is known. He happened to be a very famous scientist. Knowing the name, it is very easy to find out his own works on the topic in question. Surprisingly, at the same time I submitted my manuscript, he (associate editor) published two papers in this and higher-rank journals where he stated exactly the opposite to what he wrote in his report to reject my work. Even after he had written his report, he continued to publish and give talks where he states the same point of view (which is the opposite to that of he wrote in his report). If my conjecture concerning the first referee's identity is correct, he is a coauthor of some of the associate editor's works and the associate editor just wants to help him to reject competing superior results.
I collected all these facts, presented them to the editors of the journal and accused that associate editor of scientific misconduct (because what he wrote in his report is a deliberate lie, supposedly in collusion with the referee, or even with both referees). After two months, I received a short message that the Editor in Chief will decide what to do in this case. Up to now there is no reply. It seems that the editors simply want to hush this incident up.
This journal is one of the oldest and most respectable journals in its field. Is there a way to change this situation and force the editors to report this incident and disclose the identities of the unfair referees?
Update. Since I still cannot add comments, I'll answer the questions and clarify the point. First of all, it is not my first rejected manuscript. I fully understand that the reviewing system is not perfect and cannot be completely objective. I know that the reports can be subjective, imprecise and just unfair, so the success of submission often has an element of randomness and luck. That is why usually authors have several rounds of review. I know all such quirks and I'm prepared for them.
Unfortunately, in my case it is was not a scientific debate I thought I was in. To be more concrete, I delineate the problem in question. There are two directions of research to make some technology practical. The first approach is less efficient, but simpler to implement experimentally. The other one is more efficient, but more difficult to realize. The associate editor has been working for at least 10 years on the first approach and is still working on it now. But in his report he wrote that due to the inefficiency this approach is not practical and presents no interest. Half a year after his report, he gives a talk in MIT and tells that this approach can help to make the technology practical, in addition to his published papers, appeared approximately at the same time (of course, they where submitted a few months before). Yes, he always says that "Show is white", but in his report he wrote that "Snow is not white".
I collected all these facts and sent them to the editors, accusing that associate editor in scientific misconduct (if I were not absolutely sure that I'm right, I would not go that far). The short message I received is that it the Editor in Chief who will decide what to do and that is all. I'm absolutely sure that they just want to hush this incident up. Despite the fact that most probably more people are involved in this misconduct, at least of the referees (or both). I have strong reasons to believe that at least one of the referees is a coauthor of the unfair associate editor but, as it was commented below, it is only my conjecture.
As I already said, it is not my first rejected manuscript and I could survive without it, but it would mean that any unfair referee can do absolutely everything with impunity. There is no guarantee that this will not happen again. So, I thought to make this facts public, but I'm not sure what is the right place for such a report. My first thought was to send it to arXiv, but I'm not sure that it will accept such a "manuscript". And what are the legal consequences if I publish such a report?