It's not so much the "interesting-ness" aspect. It's about recognizing where the papers fit and if there is a novel contribution in the first place. Even thoug

It's not so much the "interesting-ness" aspect. It's about recognizing where the papers fit and if there is a novel contribution in the first place. Even though they emphasize technical correctness, it's very easy for a reviewer to misread the intention of the paper and assert that it, for instance, uses too simple of a model for a different field, or didn't cite appropriate literature for that field. It obviously doesn't happen all the time, but the fact that there is that risk there encourages the general formulaic writing (at least for me).