I'm glad to see this actually being evaluated empirically. Initially I was surprised but as I thought about it it made sense to me, and was consistent with my own personal experiences.

Like a lot of things in the professional sphere, my impressions are that when it's done reliably and in good faith it can be helpful, but when it's not, it's counterproductive. Often it's abused as a leverage mechanism in department politics, letting friends slide on some points, or cudgeling others who do research (or other academic activities) you don't want to make room for more of your own types of colleagues. In general, to try to shape the activities of the department to what you want (or hide systemic problems in the department), rather than as a good faith feedback mechanism.

Also, as you get into higher skill levels a lot of the continuing peer evaluation practice gets into murkier and murkier territories, where you're more and more likely to run into differences opinion. I think this is true of things like subspecialty certification in medicine but also academics. Casting things in terms of performance review becomes questionable.

It's hard for me to imagine it going away, as it's an important response to those who would get rid of tenure entirely. Maybe the processes could be changed, improved, or recast, but it's hard for me to imagine it going away even if it's misguided.