One of the problems with the current peer review system is the ease with which a reviewer can recommend rejecting a manuscript based on personal conflicts of interest (for example, viewing the work as competitive with their own). Making reviews open, and possibly de-anonymizing them, could alleviate this (allowing the public to review the review itself). Since the review requires the manuscript itself as context, the manuscript then needs to become publicly visible regardless of the reviewers' decisions.

Another problem is the difficulty that editors have in finding reviewers (to work for free essentially). One solution could be to require authors to act as reviewers before they can submit their own work. For example, if a manuscript requires N favorable reviews to be accepted, then for each manuscript an author submits, they must provide N reviews of other manuscripts.

There is still something missing from the above in terms of "reviewing a review". The closest thing I can think of is comment threads where the post is the manuscript... There needs to be a way for low-quality reviews to be reported as such and invalidated. Right now all this is on the shoulders of the editor, who doesn't have time to do more than add up the recommendations of the reviewers.