This might be "simply" because peer review is structurally broken (or I've outdated views! I haven't done this in years), but my perspective from reviewers in vis, eurovis, icml, neurips, kdd and facct was "they work with the venue's best interests at heart, not mine"

i don't necessarily disagree in general! my commentary is particularly CHI-centric, as CHI now has a required r&r cycle. a reasonable take away here would be that r&r is unnecessary exactly bc of this proclivity.