DISCLAIMER: As some readers have found the following question and prior title (How to best kill a manuscript as peer reviewer) outrageously unethical, I want to clarify that, by asking this question, I was simply and constructively trying to be provocative, not suggesting any means to hijack the peer review process.
I often peer review manuscripts for scholarly journals. In the most typical scenario, the editor asks me a quality appraisal and a priority appraisal.
For quality, the typical recommendations can be (mutually exclusive): accept as is, minor revision, major revision, and reject.
For priority, the typical alternatives can be (mutually exclusive): top priority, mid priority, low priority.
My experience and perspective is that most manuscripts do not deserve a rejection, as they most often have some merits, at least in the field of pragmatic cardiovascular research, where most works are only incrementally original.
If my will is to try to "kill the manuscript", i.e. maximize the likelihood it is eventually rejected because I find it unsuitable for that specific journal, but still finding it has some incremental value, I simply recommend minor or major revisions, but give low or very low priority.
Is this sound and appropriate? Am I wrong in this approach?