We submitted a third revision. Actually, the new reviewer was invited in the second round because another review seems dont have time to review another time.
The new reviewer proposed some new comments, including a writing style concerns rather than scientific concerns. (i.e., rather hypotheses development should put in LR section or they should be separate sections). We give our reasons and cite some articles that discuss LR and Hypothesis in the same section.
  The reviewer don't agree and the third revision only have this concerns. We still don't want to make any changes, as that we feel we'll have to redeveloped the paper.

More important, the suggestions have too much personal perspectives inside. So, we argued with more evidence. It went far to how to write a paper rather than the science itself.

We also write a email to the editor in chief as we don't know who is the AE. Editor in chief said she will review everything, and make decision. But just today, we got email saying the article was rejected and they just said, the reviewers only provide private comments to editor and against accepting (note that the other reviewers agree to accept already in previous). I just feel so upset with the editor.

Shall I appeal or move it on to journal B.

For a manuscript we were having under review, a new reviewer was invited in the second round because another reviewer dropped out.

The new reviewer proposed some new changes, including ones regarding writing style rather than science. For example, they suggested that hypotheses development should happen in the literature review or separate sections. We gave our reasons and cited some articles that review literature and discuss the hypothesis in the same section. The reviewer didn’t agree and for the third revision, they only had this concern. We still didn’t want to make these changes, as that we felt we would have to rewrite the paper. More important, the suggestions had too much personal perspectives inside. So we argued with more evidence. It was all about writing style instead of science.

We submitted a third revision. Note that the other reviewers recommended accepting the paper at this point.

We also wrote an email to the editor in chief as we don’t know who the associate editor was. The editor in chief said she will review everything, and make a decision. But just today, we got email saying the article was rejected and it just said, that the reviewers only provide private comments to editor and against accepting. I just feel so upset with the editor.

Shall I appeal or move on to the next journal?

We submitted a third revision. Actually, the new reviewer was invited in the second round because another review seems dont have time to review another time. The new reviewer proposed some new comments, including a writing style concerns rather than scientific concerns. (i.e., rather hypotheses development should put in LR section or they should be separate sections). We give our reasons and cite some articles that discuss LR and Hypothesis in the same section. The reviewer don't agree and the third revision only have this concerns. We still dont want to make any changes as if that, we have to redeveloped the paper. More important, the suggestions have too much personal perspectives inside. So, we argued with more evidence. It went far to how to write a paper rather than the science itself. We also write a email to the editor in chief as we dont know who is the AE. Editor in chief said she will review everything, and make decision. But just today, we got email said the article was reject and the just said, the reviewers only provide private comments to editor and against accepting (rest reviewers agree to accept already in previous). I just feel so upset with the editor. Shall I appeal or move it on. B journal .

We submitted a third revision. Actually, the new reviewer was invited in the second round because another review seems dont have time to review another time.
The new reviewer proposed some new comments, including a writing style concerns rather than scientific concerns. (i.e., rather hypotheses development should put in LR section or they should be separate sections). We give our reasons and cite some articles that discuss LR and Hypothesis in the same section.
The reviewer don't agree and the third revision only have this concerns. We still don't want to make any changes, as that we feel we'll have to redeveloped the paper. 

More important, the suggestions have too much personal perspectives inside. So, we argued with more evidence. It went far to how to write a paper rather than the science itself. 

We also write a email to the editor in chief as we don't know who is the AE. Editor in chief said she will review everything, and make decision. But just today, we got email saying the article was rejected and they just said, the reviewers only provide private comments to editor and against accepting (note that the other reviewers agree to accept already in previous). I just feel so upset with the editor. 

Shall I appeal or move it on to journal B.

We submitted a third revision. Actually, the new reviewer was invited in the second round because another review seems dont have time to review another time. The new reviewer proposed some new comments, including a writing style concerns rather than scientific concerns. (i.e., rather hypotheses development should put in LR section or they should be separate sections). We give our reasons and cite some articles that discuss LR and Hypothesis in the same section. The reviewer don't agree and the third version only have this concerns. We still dont want to make any changes as if that, we have to redeveloped the paper. More important, the suggestions have too much personal perspectives inside. So, we argued with more evidence. It went far to how to write a paper rather than the science itself. We also write a email to the editor in chief as we dont know who is the AE. Editor in chief said she will review everything, and make decision. But just today, we got email said the article was reject and the just said, the reviewers only provide private comments to editor and against accepting (rest reviewers agree to accept already in previous). I just feel so upset with the editor. Shall I appeal or move it on. B journal .

We submitted a third revision. Actually, the new reviewer was invited in the second round because another review seems dont have time to review another time. The new reviewer proposed some new comments, including a writing style concerns rather than scientific concerns. (i.e., rather hypotheses development should put in LR section or they should be separate sections). We give our reasons and cite some articles that discuss LR and Hypothesis in the same section. The reviewer don't agree and the third revision only have this concerns. We still dont want to make any changes as if that, we have to redeveloped the paper. More important, the suggestions have too much personal perspectives inside. So, we argued with more evidence. It went far to how to write a paper rather than the science itself. We also write a email to the editor in chief as we dont know who is the AE. Editor in chief said she will review everything, and make decision. But just today, we got email said the article was reject and the just said, the reviewers only provide private comments to editor and against accepting (rest reviewers agree to accept already in previous). I just feel so upset with the editor. Shall I appeal or move it on. B journal .