One of the many flaws in peer review as applied in refereeing is that it trains scientists to become-comfortable-with untruthfulness, and to make excuses for (what they believe to be) wrong facts or ideas published under their own names.
This has become an almost routine aspect of the journal peer review process.
The original and proper function of a scientific paper was for an individual (or small group) to publish their views and observations under their own names, and to be responsible for these views - to defend these views against competent critique - or, if they could not defend them, eventually to retract them.
But nowadays, in order to publish, authors are frequently - probably usually - compelled to alter their arguments and interpretations in line with what journal referees suggest.
The modern 'scientific' paper as it appears when published in a peer reviewed journal generally ends-up as a mosaic of some of the author's own best estimates of truth (although some things the authors consider to be important will probably have been deleted at the insistence of referees), along with the various opinions and interpretations that originate from the journal referees.
In a nutshell, the modern editorial process changes what the author believes and considers important, to yield an incomplete and biased version of the authors best knowledge; but the result is published under the name of the authors, and these authors are supposed to take responsibility for it.
In my opinion, this is a corrupt and corrupting practice.
Except for the correction of accidental errors, articles submitted to journals ought not to be subjected to substantive changes.
The editor's role should be restricted to matters of presentation. By and large, papers should be accepted or rejected - not rebuilt.
As I used to express it when I was myself an editor; to preserve the integrity of science, the editor's role should be as a chooser, not a changer.