The traditional approach to refereeing is sub-optimal for a number of reasons: the choice of referees is exclusive to Journal editors; only up to a handful of referees are consulted; the best potential referees are not necessarily chosen; one cannot, as a specialist, volunteer to report on a paper (manuscript shortcomings are thus very often not flagged before publication); closed-door refereeing, with reports viewable only by editors and authors, is not fully accountable (referee reports are thus often of low quality); refereeing work is not credited (the quality of reports thus further suffers from a lack of incentive).
Contributors thus have additional incentives to actively participate and provide not only high-quality Submissions, but also Reports and Comments of the highest achievable professional caliber (an online search form allows to retrieve backed-aggregated statistics by performing a search by researcher's name).
Abusive behaviour is prevented by Editorial vetting of all Reports, Replies and Comments before public posting.