Which review recommendation should I give to maximize the likelihood that a manuscript is rejected? 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?
Is this sound and appropriate?


No. Your job as a reviewer is not to choose which manuscripts are accepted or rejected. Your job is to advise the editor as to the merits and the flaws of the manuscript, and then let the editor decide the fate of the manuscript.

Thus, you should give the manuscript the ratings that most accurately reflect your perception of it, not the ratings that you think will get it "killed".


  I think that there is an underlying misunderstanding


I don't think I misunderstood the first version of your question, and my answer still applies. It is not up to the reviewer to maximize the likelihood of any particular outcome; just tell the editor what you think of the manuscript, and leave the rest to the editor. 

This means that if you are asked by the editor to recommend an overall decision, you should recommend an overall decision. If asked by the editor to recommend a decision based on quality and specifically excluding the priority, novelty, and usefulness of contribution, then you should do exactly that. (If you aren't clear on what factors should be included your quality recommendation, ask the editor.) If you believe that a manuscript should be rejected from a given journal because its contribution is incremental, you can indicate as much in the part of the review where you're asked to assess the manuscript's originality and/or in a separate comment to the editor.