This is great when everyone is smart, aligned in the purpose, has no politics, dog in the fight, but awful everywhere else.
It's the difference between peer review by leaders in the field trying to make your paper better, and juniors wanting to be heard or insecure academics trying to get an ego boost by nit picking and wasting time.
Intellectual bloodbath sounds like so much of the latter with point scoring being the goal.
That’s a great meta point.
Intellectual honesty, saying "I don’t know", for example, is only possible in low-politics environments. Otherwise, you make yourself vulnerable to the wolves.