I haven't had a chance to read the original paper but as an editor and frequent reviewer I had a couple of questions. First, a lot of journals post criteria to

I haven't had a chance to read the original paper but as an editor and frequent reviewer I had a couple of questions. First, a lot of journals post criteria to evaluate papers by. For various reasons, open journals seem to push these more strictly. Some of them get adopted across journals and even publishers. I could see a reviewer using the exact language of these criteria just to make it clear they're following the criteria. Second, reviewing is kind of in crisis, ironically for reasons that cut against the the argument of the paper. It's often thankless and increasingly hard to find reviewers. When you can they're short on time. These boilerplate bits of text or even use of AI might just be a way to save time while still acting in good faith. I don't mean to suggest there's nothing problematic going on or that the authors didn't address these issues but I can think of other interpretations of things that would be important to address.