How to Proceed: Journal Agreed to Publish, 6 Months Later Reneges I would like request some advice regarding my situation.  Here is a summary: I submitted an article for review for publication in an upper-tier academic journal.  I have been published in this journal before and thought I had a good relationship with the editor in chief (EIC).  Six months after submission, I received an email from the EIC, telling me that the article was excellent and after I made one small change, they would agree to publish it.  I made the change to the EIC's satisfaction and the EIC agreed to publish the article.  

Six months after this, I unexpectedly received an email from the EIC telling me that, upon further review, the journal would not publish the article.  The EIC then listed three "incorrect" words (yes, words) in the article (it is 20+ pages in length) as the reasons for not publishing it.  The EIC stated that publishing the article in its present form would damage my career goals.  The EIC also informed me he would not work with me on the article any longer, as he had "spent enough time on it."  The EIC then stated that I needed to re-do the entire article and work with "experts in the field."  After this was completed, the EIC stated I could resubmit, if I wanted.  Again, all of this is completely out of the blue.

Needless to say, I am stunned.  Also needless to say, this situation is unacceptable.  How would you suggest I proceed at this point?  In my opinion, the EIC made a commitment to publish my article in its present form and the EIC should honor this commitment.  Should I attempt to contact the EIC's superior(s) about this behavior?  It is very strange, and is a huge breach of academic standards.  Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.
This is a very bizarre situation—I must admit that I've never heard of a paper being rejected because three words are incorrect. It seems that the level of response from the journal is not proportional to the level of the problem. 

I agree with Nate's answer that you will probably need to publish elsewhere. Since the decision has been made by the editor-in-chief, the only appeal would be to the publisher, who would be reluctant to overrule a scientific decision by the editor-in-chief absent signs of foul play.

However, in addition to submitting to a different journal, I would definitely try to get in contact with the editor-in-chief to understand what's going on. If he's someone you already know, I would try to see if I could talk with the person directly on the phone, rather than just email. You might be able to get a better sense of what's going on with this rejection than just in an email. I would not try to force the editor-in-chief to change his mind; I would use this opportunity to figure out what caused the paper to go from essentially accepted to rejected in one step.

If you don't get any response, then you should escalate to the publisher. Such behavior is highly irregular, and should be brought to their attention. (Just state it as: "This is what happened and this is why I think it's unusual." But again don't expect a reversal.)