I don't think any of these biases are necessarily consciously enacted, but I think they exist in some of the ways you mention. There's a sort of echo chamber effect or positive feedback loop with citations.
Somewhere I remember reading a bibliometric analysis of citation patterns in the nutritional sciences regarding the effects of salt. There were two huge clusters of papers, one basically "salt is basically fine" and the other is "salt should basically be avoided". The papers in a cluster cited each other a lot, and not so much papers in the other clusters.
I agree that quality reviews become more important over time, but there's the issue of "according to who?" I suppose this becomes an expert judgment call and is the nature of these things, as it always has been, but I feel like as things become more parochial and balkanized the meaning of a "good review" changes somewhat, or becomes harder to agree on.