[jostmey]

The peer-review system is antiquated, developed before the internet and powerpoint presentations. Anything that facilitates interaction between authors and other researchers will be a vast improvement.

Peer-review doesn't catch fraud and is sometimes a political process. I've found the best corrections I've gotten is after posting pre-prints to online forums. I suggest that commenting on pre-prints is better than peer-review pre-publication. I imagine a ranking system could highlight comments from trusted reviewers. Studies that no one wants to review were probably never going to be read anyway, and so there was never any reason to review these studies anyway.

[a_bonobo]

Yeah that's post-publication peer review, which I tend to gravitate towards myself; un-peer-reviewed papers in my field, posted on biorxiv, are generally of pretty high quality. (this might change as preprinting becomes a fully established route in biology)

Any peer review added to that might improve some things, but is it worth it to add ~6 months to the publication timeline for a marginally improved manuscript? I'd say no.