Make peer review great (again?)

In this reply I comment on the editorial by Lubinski, Decker, and MacKenzie. I applaud the editors' initiative to raise a discussion on peer-review, and point to the need for a new valuation of the taken-for-granted work and effort that reviewers generously avail for authors, journals and publishers. I also argue for the increasing need for real humans in peer-review, in a future where AI promises to deliver non-empathic readings, valuations and editing of academic work.