Many argue that the peer review is broken—but it should not be. The focal article by Kohler et al. (2020) comes at a time when many researchers and some editors are claiming the peer review process is broken with observations of the impact of human frailties (Rennie, 2016), that the peer review system is unsustainable (Kovanis, Porcher, Ravaud, & Trinquart, 2016), and that the system exploits academics (Fox & Petchy, 2010). While the focal article moves to address the human frailties issue, the second issue relates to the academic pool willing to complete peer reviews, and this is a problem that needs to be also resolved for the quality of reviews to have any effect. Indeed, if we are able to broaden the reviewing pool, this may make establishing quality standards even more important. The final issue, which relates to the exploitation of academic labor by publishing houses, while associated with the reduced reviewing pool, could be considered an economic or structural problem. In this response, I seek to address the problems that emerge from fewer academics engaging in the peer review process. I also offer solutions for what we can do about it and explain how this can be linked to the professionalism competency within the quality framework for peer review offered by Kohler et al.

中文翻译：

---

质量标准和培训在同行评审过程中很重要，但参与度呢？

许多人认为同行评议被打破了——但它不应该被打破。Kohler 等人的焦点文章。（2020 年）正值许多研究人员和一些编辑声称同行评审过程因对人类弱点影响的观察而中断（Rennie，2016 年），同行评审系统不可持续（Kovanis、Porcher、Ravaud 和Trinquart，2016 年），并且该系统利用学者（Fox & Petchy，2010 年）。虽然焦点文章转向解决人性弱点问题，但第二个问题涉及愿意完成同行评审的学术群体，这也是一个需要解决的问题，以便评审质量产生任何影响。事实上，如果我们能够扩大审查范围，这可能会使建立质量标准变得更加重要。最后一期，这与出版社对学术劳动力的剥削有关，虽然与减少的审阅人数有关，但可以被视为经济或结构性问题。在此回复中，我试图解决因参与同行评审过程的学者较少而出现的问题。我还提供了我们可以做些什么的解决方案，并解释了如何将这与 Kohler 等人提供的同行评审质量框架内的专业能力联系起来。