> accurate peer-review and unbiased evaluations

And how do you even guarantee this, 'accurate' and 'unbiased'? Any form of peer review will always have a slant, no matter how 'objective' it is intended to be.

Until that can be ascertained, I don't see how peer review is fundamentally superior. I would even argue that peer review can be detrimental to true science, especially those on the frontier.