Three times this year a bad thing has happened after I've encouraged editors to give a paper "revise and resubmit."
Note that whenever I review a paper and don't recommend immediate acceptance I work really hard trying to help the writer so that their rewrite will to be up to the quality of the journal. Even when I counsel "rejection" I still try to give detailed constructive advice about how the paper could be recast, even suggesting places the author should send the rewritten paper.
So three times this year instead of making the changes I recommended the author resubmitted substantially the same paper and argued with some vehemence that they should not have to change their paper in the ways I suggested. In all three cases the journal editor had given the paper "revise and resubmit," but then rejected the insufficiently rewritten paper. In two of these cases I googled the paper title after this was over and found out that the submitters were graduate students. This is so bad on so many levels.
So please communicate this to all and sundry: (1) Revise and resubmit is something to be celebrated, (2) always take into account criticism and suggestions, even if only to idiot-proof for the next reviewer, (3) have some humility.
I"m not trying to be censorious here. If I was I wouldn't spend so much time giving detailed advice about how to get papers up to publishable standards. In addition, I know first-hand how stressful this process is for writers and first-hand how stress can produce weird and suboptimal behavior. I'm trying to help.
I'd very be interested to hear if other reviewers have faced this kind of self-destructive behavior, and if so if there's anything more we should be doing to stop it. But if I'm being a jerk here, I trust that someone will point that out too.