Is peer review ripe for a revise and resubmit?–Academics might be less the party answering that question

This is a short essay in response to the editorial by Lubinski, Decker, and MacKenzie (this issue), in which the authors emphasise the need for scientific peer-review, but also scrutinise it for its potential necessity to be ‘revised and resubmitted’. Finding much agreement with their engaging and insightful editorial, I elaborate a little on some of their arguments (especially on ‘snarky reviewers’), but also add to their piece by highlighting that there are many external parties–from accreditation bodies and publishers to OpenAI et al.–that prompt the evolution of peer-review in ways that increasingly slips out of academic control. Therefore, when the question is asked ‘whether peer review is ripe for a revise and resubmit?’, my concern is that academics become less the party answering that question.