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.