I think the problem is with the publishing culture in some disciplines. For an example of a field in which peer review does not appear to be problematic consider finance/econ. In finance and econ you march you paper around to a number of different conferences. At AFA you even get a discussant that presents a critique after you present your work. After evolving the paper based on feedback from the conference circuit you eventually submit to a journal. At this point your work has been (hopefully) widely circulated in the community and is unlikely to be some piece of crap.

Contrast this with engineering. When you submit to a conference it has to be "new" work and you lose the copyright. It is a one shot deal. So, the benefit of feedback you might get on your work is basically irrelevant because that work in no longer publishable.