The referee reports you get back from journals can vary greatly in quality, length, tone, and character. Here are some broad types. I have received all types over the years. 1. Publish paper as is. A few generic positive comments about the paper. 2. Publish the paper once the following issues have been addressed. A long and detailed list of criticisms, suggestions, questions, and comments. 3. Send to another journal. Paper is not "important" for vague subjective reasons. No detailed criticism or discussion. 4. Send to another journal. Paper is not "important" for subjective reasons. A long and detailed list of criticisms, suggestions, questions, and comments. 5. Reject. Superficial criticisms. Most people might say that 1. is their dream. It certainly makes life easy. No further work is required. You get to add another line to your CV and focus on the next publon. But, did the referees actually read the paper and engage with the scientific content?