If this is happening, I think there's a few reasons:
Quantum physics in general is the science subject where the most precise agreement between theory and experiment exists. For example, the experimental work: Nature 588, pg 61–65 (2020) "Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion", and a QED calculation involving 12672 10th order Feynman diagrams agree in the "part per 10 billion" digit for the reciprocal of the fine structure constant :
1/137.0359992 [experiment, up to 10 significant digits]
1/137.0359992 [QED, up to 10 significant digits]
Even for actual matter modeling, we have had similar success, see: How accurate are the most accurate calculations?. Solid-state condensed matter is more complicated since more atoms and molecules are involved, but we are still able to quite precisely predict phase transitions, conductivity, and with BCS theory, even superconductivity properties, often within the limits of what experimentalists can do, or to what practically matters. The editors of physics journals, and the people from the physics community that will be asked to referee papers, will largely come from physics departments, which at least until very recently had far more people from the "old-school" physics tradition ("biophysics" is a relatively new term) and will be used to trusting calculations.
Biology is on average much less quantitative. Some areas can be extremely quantitative, but the vast majority of a biology department will be wet lab experimentalists who did not learn math or computer programming beyond their first year calculus class, rather than bioinformatics (another relatively new term) researchers. Most biologists are used to being around people who don't have the same level of appreciation for the fact that things like "$\hat{H} | \psi_n(t) \rangle = i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} | \psi_n(t) \rangle$" can sometimes actually predict physical quantities with more accuracy than the best experiments (something that is often proven to be correct many years or decades later).
Biology by definition is about living things, and life is a complicated thing (even the components of life, which you're studying in a structural biology simulation). It's far easier thermodynamically, for atoms and molecules to randomly come together and form a solid-state material that can be studied by typical condensed matter physicists, than for randomness to result in a non-living protein that can be studied by typical structural biologists. In that sense, biologists are a lot less lucky, in that they are not dealing with quantities for which we can calculate the values ab initio with such exquisite accuracy: I often say "climate change (like biology) is complicated because we don't have the Schroedinger equation for tomorrow's weather" and I also happened to see this quote at the end of a youtube video this morning:
"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of
people." ~ Isaac Newton
I can also calculate the conductivity of a material, but not how a protein folds.
