[chr1]

Then do we even need peer review? In my experience it is always superficial, people just feel that they have to say something, so they say something about writing style, or similar trivia.

The way it should work is you put your stuff with code and all data on github. People interested in the field or working for journals read it, and rate it, journals collect links to paper repositories that are highly rated by scientists who have many highly rated papers in the field, and call that publication.

[RBerenguel]

I've been peer reviewed once (and waiting for the second) and it was very in depth, giving me a couple of pointers to improve my paper. Field was mathematics, though.

[chr1]

sure it depends on field, on journal and on reviewer, and but with a github like interface, and public reviews it will only get better.

[RBerenguel]

Problem is, if the review is public then it means the article is also in the public and some (most) publishers are not OK with that. At least yet, hopefully it will get better.