I'm writing a report regarding a paper in mathematics, which I have spent three months reviewing. During this period, I have tried to understand the ideas presented by the authors, but in vain.
The format of the paper and the length of the proofs are making it hard, even to an experienced reader, to understand what the authors are trying to prove. In addition, there are some lexical mistakes overall throughout the paper.
Now, while the question addressed in the paper is novel. All the above mentioned problems have pushed me to opt for a rejection. But then, I'm hesitating and thinking about recommending a major revision instead, given that as I mentioned, the idea of the paper is novel.
So, is it normal to recommend a rejection solely based on the problems that I have mentioned or should one opt for a major revision instead?