At least I think so because of your previous comment. Since I can only take this as context their might be a misunderstanding. Still I would like to point out a few thinks, I did not like about your comment.
In my opinion, you are looking at the problem from the wrong angle.
If code gets worse (non working) after a code review, the reviewer made some serious mistakes and/or was not guiding his colleague to the correct solution like it should be.
Also if working code gets rejected because of bad practice, you should not be mad about it but be thankful that someone caught that before release.
If your only measurement of code quality, is that something is working, I would consider that a dangerous practice.
In my opinion, you are looking at the problem from the wrong angle. If code gets worse (non working) after a code review, the reviewer made some serious mistakes and/or was not guiding his colleague to the correct solution like it should be. Also if working code gets rejected because of bad practice, you should not be mad about it but be thankful that someone caught that before release. If your only measurement of code quality, is that something is working, I would consider that a dangerous practice.