Also hard agree on publishing reviews. It seems to be the only viable modification of peer review that we have.
My latest experience with peer review was just bad. No matter the conclusion they drew, there was just a clear lack of quality and understanding in their thoughts and effort. And this is not infrequent.
More generally, such a modification has knock on effects that probably warrant some thought on what we do with our publication practices. Published reviews will probably require more work from reviewers who are already time poor. Better reviews, hopefully, but fewer of them and fewer papers?
Counting a good review as a citable publication might be worth considering, as essentially mini idiosyncratic literature reviews. Perhaps in combination with Registered Reports[1], where the proposal is published and reviewed before the study/work is done, in which case the reviewer is closer to symbiotic co-publisher.
Either way, it seems that for both authors and reviewers, who are effectively the same people and both rely on peer-review as a guarantee of the value of their work, that the actual work of peer review needs to be taken more seriously and not conceived of as some sort of feudal aristocratic gentlemen’s duty.
~~~~~~~~