So that sounds like the review system is broken, but not the concept itself. I always had the impression that anyone could review the paper, as in anyone can re

So that sounds like the review system is broken, but not the concept itself. I always had the impression that anyone could review the paper, as in anyone can read a book and write a review about it, and then they all publicly could ask questions about parts of paper that are incorrect, science paper "bugs" if you will, that the author would have to clarify/fix and when there are no more of these "bugs" it is considered as peer reviewed. Although it wouldn't mean there are no more incorrect things, just that nobody asked about them. Also that would mean that mostly people interested in field are involved in review. What you described sounds really detrimental to the whole process. Is peer reviewing so hated between researchers that they need to be assigned and forced a deadline to get papers reviewed?