Heh! It did take me about ten years from first submission to high-end-academic conference acceptance of an RCU-related article. The first article in a high-end academic journal giving a detailed description of RCU will likely appear within a year or so, about 15 years after first submission.
About five years of that time was due to me learning how to describe RCU coherently to an academic audience. For the rest of the time spent, the issues described in the parent article apply, particularly the part about lack of time. All too often academics are doing their review in the wee hours of the morning, which makes it hard for them to wrap their heads around something truly new and foreign. So a successful academic paper needs to be sailing some place new, but it had better be sailing really close to shore.
So again, this comes down to communication: papers where the reviewer can quickly and easily understand what is new and interesting about the submission are more readily accepted than papers that cover less-familiar material. So in that sense, yes, this problem is inherent in review in general, not just review of kernel patches.