Maintaining the quality of peer-review in the face of an ever-increasing quantity of article submissions [1] represents a major challenge for authors, reviewers, and editors. It is increasingly difficult for time-constrained editors and reviewers to maintain the consistent quality of published papers without increasing turnover periods in the review process. At the same time, the limited publication capacity of journals necessitates increased rejection rates, which in turn leads to reviewers and editors being increasingly criticized, despite their best efforts and intentions, for being subjective, nontransparent, or even biased in their evaluation of manuscripts [2].