Will journals consider significantly revised versions of rejected papers?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early career philosopher asks:

How different does a paper have to be from its earlier incarnation for it to be acceptable to submit it to a journal that rejected the earlier incarnation?

More concretely: I have been re-writing a paper that was rejected from a generalist journal but with encouraging comments from two referees and the area editor. The new version has a very similar fundamental point as the old version. But the main claim is formulated differently, the argument is a bit different, the paper is shorter, with a different structure and the writing itself is all completely new, no copy-pasta. Will the journal(s) that rejected its predecessor consider my new version? Might they even send it to the same referees?
Also, is the answer affected by whether or not I change the title?

These are good questions, and I'm really curious to hear what everyone thinks. A late-career philosopher submitted the following reply:

Just send the paper to another journal. I once was asked to referee a paper that was resubmitted with a different title to the same journal. I was so angry. Having agreed to referee it, and discovering it was a revised paper I had seen before, I then retracted my offer to review it. Just just delayed the whole process for the author and journal. But I was done with that paper, and felt tricked!

My own sense is that it's probably best to move on to other journals. But, for all that, I'm curious to hear from authors and editors. For authors, have you ever tried doing what the OP describes? What was the result? And for editors: what do you think about this kind of case?

Comments

[Resubmittable]

Minds & Machines, and Philosophy & Technology have the option 'resubmittable'. The paper is rejected, but the editor is willing to accept a radically revised version in light of referees' comments (in the new submission you have to specify that it is a resubmission). I guess it's a sort of 'mega major revisions', but the paper is officially rejected

[Damian]

Sending to another journal is your best and most convenient option here. I am sure you have not exhausted all the good journals as options.

Nevertheless, if you do decide to resubmit to the journal that rejected you, my advice is: contact the editor beforehand and only resubmit if they give you approval. That would be the only way (I can think of) to make sure your paper does not run into problems later on.

[modernist]

That new Spinoza journal says you can resubmit but need to wait six months.

[Phil Osopher]

Resubmittable: but that's just what an R+R is.

Most decent journals don't frame R+Rs as 'hey your paper's pretty good, but plz make these changes.' They say 'nah, we're rejecting this, but if you think you can address these comments, feel free to try again. However, we make no promises.'

[Resubmittable]

Phil Osopher: that's what I thought, but they do distinguish between r&r and resubmittable. The latter is a new submission altogether. From their wording, it looks like that if they give a R&R, they are committing to publishing the paper, but as we know it is typical to get R&R and then reject the paper.
The editors of the two journals are Taddeo and Floridi. They have been collaborating for years, they have a lot of editorial experience, and I suppose they have good reasons for coming up with this system.

[Tim]

I have never done what OP is considering. I think the best advice is: move on to a new journal. But I also think that if OP has entirely re-written the paper, it may be fine to resubmit it. (Microsoft word has an ability to compare two papers; if the comparison reveals less than 10% overlap, then I say its probably fine to resubmit!)

[Andrew]

I tried it once. Got desk rejected by the editor. Sent to a different journal and got accepted very rapidly.

I'm confused by Resubmittable's comment: "they give a R&R, they are committing to publishing the paper." I don't know what journal functions that way. While I've gotten all of my R&Rs eventually accepted by those journals, I've never been under the impression that the first response committed them to publishing my paper. On the opposite side as a reviewer, I've also strongly advocated rejection after R&R and as far as I know that was the outcome.