{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01818181818181818, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.559523809523809, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How to Improve the Quality of Peer Reviews? Three Suggestions for System-level Changes

Peer reviewing is critical in the process of legitimizing new scientific knowledge. Yet, there are concerns about its quality, especially if one considers developmental reviewing as an ideal. The present essay suggests three ways to improve review quality: provide reviewers with systematic feedback about their performance, reward active and good reviewers, and make reviewers more accountable by revealing their identities to the authors on certain conditions.