The peer review process is not as flawed as many think. It is needed to keep professional journals and granting agencies functioning at a high level. When working as intended, it is a benefit to scientists, saving time from having to sort through useless material that should never have been published, and making research money go to those most likely to do productive research.
The feared failures such as reviews that are uninformed, biased, eliminating work from competitors or other lapses are minimal according to some research on the topic done years ago. Peer reviewers may be overworked and usually unpaid volunteers. They usually are active publishers in the field they review. But complaints arise.
I have thought about the problem. The following overlong suggestion for a solution was formulated about seven years ago. It was after about ten years of retirement, keeping up my interest in biological sciences, and it occurred to me that I could have been part of the solution. It is too late for me now, but it might provoke someone to do something about it.
Joe Engemann June 7, 2013