Certainly the current system can be gamed, and is, and the complaints about problems with bibliometrics about 10 seconds after the first one was published. But

Certainly the current system can be gamed, and is, and the complaints about problems with bibliometrics about 10 seconds after the first one was published. But the argument is that "giving other researchers the ability to rate ... [would work] just as well as this journal reputation system". My question is, simply, why should I believe this? Bibliometrics often look at citations. Citations are, yes, a marker of popularity and social connections, but also have certain scholastic requirements. Editors and reviewers can and do point out missing references or highlight too many irrelevant self-citations. This is a type of moderation system. Imperfect certainly, but it does provide some grounding. Also, it's not like the scientific publication system only contains original research papers. Review papers fill a curational role, with the advantage of a single voice (even if from co-authors) making the comparisons, so I at least have a relatively constant baseline.