getting through review in the same journals with serious holes

"papers are getting through review in the same journals with serious holes"?

Are the papers with serious holes (flaws?)? Or are the journals with serious holes?

Context:

Beyond anecdotal

"It is hard to get beyond anecdotal evidence of reviewers making extravagant demands," says co-signatory Austin Smith at the University of Cambridge, also publicising the letter this week. "The more serious issue is that papers are getting through review in the same journals with serious holes, or interpretations that go way beyond the data," he says.

"Because all comments would be published, it would hopefully make biased or careless refereeing less common, and it would embarrass journals if people could spot biased or stupid comments," says Lovell-Badge.