[versteegen]

I haven't seen a manuscript that could not made better, but peer review isn't the best way to improve it.

For a start, even for a journal, the fact that there are multiple reviewers means that none of them feel much responsibility to help improve the paper. They (and I, honestly) oft seem content to read part of it and just provide comments/criticism about that. Especially at conferences the possible verdicts are "reject" or "can't find a reason to reject". I've submitted at least one paper where I wanted the reviewers to point out flaws and reject, and I was left sorely disappointed (it was rejected of course, but not for good reasons) and still in the dark about whether the research had merit.

That said, OpenReview reviews are on average far better than the ones I've received, I think it's fantastic.