It is important to note that none of the hard work and exciting findings that one obtains really contribute to scientific knowledge until the results have been published in one of the scientific journals. The peer-review process is inarguably the cornerstone of science, and good reviews often help improve the scientific quality of one's publications, but on the other hand delays in publication or rejection of a manuscript (that results in even larger delay in getting published) if based on misunderstanding of statistics especially on part of an expert reviewer, is a highly unfortunate outcome that slows down progress of science.
Reference: Friston K. Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers. NeuroImage (2012) 61: 1300–1310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.018