Had an interesting category of thing happen on peer review of our work recently.
It was the species of reviewer objection where they know they can't lay a glove on you but they just can't stop themselves from asserting their disagreement.
It was in several different contexts and the details differed. But the essence was the same.
I'm just laughing.
I mean- why do we use language that identifies the weaknesses, limits or necessary caveats in our papers if it doesn't mean anything?
Saying "...and then there is this other possible interpretation" apparently enrages some reviewers that this possibility is not seen as a reason to prevent us from publishing the data.
Pointing out that these papers over here support one view of accepted interpretations/practices/understanding can trigger outrage that you don't ignore those in favor of these other papers over there and their way of doing things.
Identifying clearly and carefully why you made certain choices generates the most hilariously twisted "objective critiques" that really boil down to "Well I use these other models which are better for some reason I can't articulate."
Do you even scholarship, bro?
I mostly chuckle and move on, but these experiences do tie into Mike Eisen's current fevers about "publishing" manuscripts prior to peer review. So I do have sympathy for his position. It is annoying when such reviewer intransigence over non-universal interpretations is used to prevent publication of data. And it would sometimes be funny to have the "Your caveats aren't caveatty enough" discussion in public.