Can it be unfair when the same referee reviews a manuscript again at a different journal? I know it is fairly common to review the same paper twice. However, I want to ask whether this can be unfair to the authors.

I recently had a paper rejected in two very prestigious applied math journals. Both times I received one very good review and both times I received the same very negative review (with minor adjustments to accomodate for the improved manuscript).

The problem is that the negative review is blatantly wrong and off the mark, criticizing everything and not suggesting anything specific. It seems to be a very peculiar opinion about my paper, written by someone that can only appreciate his own views of the subject.

It seems unfair to me that one single person was able to ruin my chances in both journals, with a possibly odd opinion. When I was at the other end of this situation, I denied to review the paper for a second time, as I'd want the authors to have a fresh judgement of their work.

So, can it be that our common policy of giving multiple reviews of the same paper, especially when we don't propose any improvement to be done, is unfair to the authors as we can be the ones wrong?

And can I, as an author, do something about this situation?
If you have concerns that the reviewer isn't being fair or just, you can always contact the editor and ask for a new reviewer. It is not entirely uncommon, I know of researchers that have a "blacklist" of people that they do not allow to review their works.

But consider that the reviewer might have a point. I know it is not your case, but I get really disappointed when I get the same paper twice and it is exactly the same text. Regardless if is the same process or not, a proper review would most likely improve the paper, so to see that not even the typos got fixed (in my case) is hard.

More to the point, how did you change your paper to make sure nobody else reading it would reach the same conclusions as this reviewer?