One thing that always cracks me up about manuscript review is the pose struck* by some reviewers that we cannot possibly interpret data or studies that are not perfect.
There is a certain type of reviewer that takes the stance* that we cannot in any way compare treatment conditions if there is anything about the study that violates some sort of perfect, Experimental Design 101 framing even if there is no reason whatsoever to suspect a contaminating variable. Even if, and this is more hilarious, if there are reasons in the data themselves to think that there is no effect of some nuisance variable.
I'm just always thinking....
The very essence of real science is comparing data across different studies, papers, paradigms, laboratories, etc and trying to come up with a coherent picture of what might be a fairly invariant truth about the system under investigation.
If the studies that you wish to compare are in the same paper, sure, you'd prefer to see less in the way of nuisance variation than you expect when making cross-paper comparisons. I get that. But still....some people.
Note: this is some way relates to the alleged "replication crisis" of science.
*having nothing to go on but their willingness to act like the manuscript is entirely uninterpretable and therefore unpublishable, I have to assume that some of them actually mean it. Otherwise they would just say "it would be better if...". right?