"My submissions were always checked for disclosure of sensitive material, never for the quality of the literature review."[1]
"In all of my time at Google AI, I never heard of pubapproval being used for peer review or to critique the scientific rigor of the work. It was never used as a journal, it was an afterthought that folks on my team would usually clear only hours before important deadlines. We like to leave peer review to the conferences/journals' existing process to weed out bad papers; why duplicate that work internally?"[2]
Do you have examples? The closest I've seen is the person I replied to saying a key person in their less academic department spiked papers he thought weren't interesting enough.[1]
"In all of my time at Google AI, I never heard of pubapproval being used for peer review or to critique the scientific rigor of the work. It was never used as a journal, it was an afterthought that folks on my team would usually clear only hours before important deadlines. We like to leave peer review to the conferences/journals' existing process to weed out bad papers; why duplicate that work internally?"[2]
[1] https://twitter.com/le_roux_nicolas/status/13346019609729064...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25307456