You have a good point but I think it’s a matter of degrees than a yes/no situation. There are also other things a researcher is incentivized to do to get past

You have a good point but I think it’s a matter of degrees than a yes/no situation. There are also other things a researcher is incentivized to do to get past reviewers such as emphasizing only the good points of your algorithm, deemphasizing its downsides, comparing only against current so-so algorithms or baseline algorithms or algorithms a couple of years old instead of the latest state of the art so that your algorithm can look good. As in, even if you propose an algorithm that has new ideas in it that could bear fruit in the future with more refinements, you as a researcher would only hype it up to get past the reviewers.