This is applicable to almost every research area, where the publication of peer-reviewed (PR) papers is de-facto a standard. I have a background in physics and a few papers published in Q1 journals, so I heard these complaints about "peer-review pressure" many times. But the truth is somewhere in between: 1. yes, sometimes you get a stubborn reviewer and it is extremely difficult to get through, I've experienced this several times; 2. but PR still deliver a required filter against a flood of low-quality papers.

In essence, I found the note above as too emotional, since currently we have nothing better than PR of papers, review of code, etc., in order to guarantee the minimal level of quality.