Ill defined research problems, vague statements, poor methodology, many grammatical mistakes... given the nature of peer review, it's only natural that people who author nonsensical papers would nod at nonsensical reviews.
For people saying that this is because academia is an old boys network: not quite so. While it can definitely be like that when you get to the top, the vast majority of peer reviewers for most conferences are just grad students, post docs, or junior researchers who don't really discriminate by trying to guess who wrote the paper.
I've done a lot of review work (but I don't like to do hard work for free any more), and nothing is more depressing than reviewing for C-track conferences. The mis-spent effort, the mis-used terminology, the buzzwords and the pretense.
Nevertheless, while bad reviews do make it through, I do think the editors are able to recognise them for what they are.
> It looks like Reagan is holding back the arms of the American eating public have changed dramatically, and it got pretty boring after about 300 games.
That's not going to get past anyone who reads it in any context. The method here was to copy entire well-formed sentences from existing reviews.
