Most companies institute code reviews and invest in tooling that stops nonstandard code (formatting and convention-wise) getting into the codebase, once they grow large enough. I think these two processes serve the same purpose, albeit with numerous exceptions depending on the seniority of the committer and reviewer(s) :)
I guess the main difference is that code editing is done in collaboration with the author (code review) as opposed to an editor.
If refactoring code did not have the potential side-effect of changing its run-time behaviour (or performance) I'd argue that software engineering would also benefit from a 'code editor' role :)