The problem is not primarily peer-review, the problem is the ridiculous publication pressure we're under. I'm a postdoc in the humanities and some of my colleag

The problem is not primarily peer-review, the problem is the ridiculous publication pressure we're under. I'm a postdoc in the humanities and some of my colleagues publish 10+ bullshit papers in crappy journals per year - their career is virtually guaranteed, even though everybody knows and agrees that it's impossible to write that much and maintain any level of quality. It doesn't matter how bad or insignificant your work is, if you manage to push out 5+ Scopus-indexed articles per year, nobody will be able to fire you or overlook you in tenure track applications, and I see more and more people gaming the system in that way. It's leads to a horrible display of mediocricity, of course, and anyone with a genuine interest in substantial scientific research has a hard time competing. Yes, some decision makers still take quality into account, but overall there is a clearcut trend towards chickenshit and bean-counting, at least in Portugal where I currently live.