[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.