Why was this photo rejected for QUALITY ISSUES?

Noise:

Dust and other artefacts:

Out of focus:

Underexposed:

Now, you will or may argue that all this is intentional: yes, and you may post this for a contest or similar, but not for use in stock, where you need to have clean pictures, that can be modified as wanted. You can't take away the defects in your picture, but I can add them in a matter of minutes.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

My reaction was the same as @Jill_C 's.  I also wonder what to use this for.  For me, I'm always analyzing an image with the question "where should the eyes go", and I'm not sure there is an intended focal point in this image.  My eyes just search around the frame looking for something to land on.

My first reaction is "what is it?"  If it can't be described effectively, Buyers are never going to find it. The red blobs of color are blurry and the foreground is littered with specks of debris, even what appear to be hairs. As Bob indicated, Buyers are looking for a compelling image, but they're also looking for clean, technically perfect images. 

Ask yourself what is the purpose of a stock image?  What are the successful ones doing and how do I decide whether to submit an image.  These are existential questions that go beyond the technical merits of lack of them.  Most successful stock images are used in advertising.  We are bombarded daily my hindreds of images; but every now and then there is an image so compelling that it makes us look at it again and again.  It appeals to our senses and it is compelling.  It stands out from the background and it has an narrative to onvey to us.  If an advertiser links hid message to such an inage, we are more likely to read about the product and a few of us will be tempted t buy it.  But it was that compelling image that made us stop and be vulnerable to the message.  Now ask yourself what is compelling about your image.  What makes us stop and look at it twice and what about it appeals to our senses?  If there is none of that in an image, it is a waste of time to submit it to a stock collection, even if it is perfectly exposed, color balanced and technically flawless. 

In addition to its lack of cognitive or emotional appeal, there are a large number of artifacts that appear with only moderate enlargement.  To me it looks out of focus.  But even if it were technically perfect, is it compelling and does it tell a story?  Is it suitable as a stock image even if it were accepted?  These are difficult questions we  all need to ask ourselves before we submit an image and I know I find them difficult to ask myself about my own images.