This is pretty normal. They don't just do a majority vote of what the reviewers say. There are several other steps of the review process before a decision is made.

I'm not sure these count as direct critiques of the field, but here are a few papers showing that we've essentially made no progress on some problems, despite many claims to the contrary:

• Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Need
• In Search of Lost Domain Generalization
• Unsupervised Domain Adaptation: A Reality Check
• A Baseline for Few-Shot Image Classification