It is hard to find alternative form of peer review but not impossible. The harder is that once it ia found will be convince people in scientific communities to

It is hard to find alternative form of peer review but not impossible. The harder is that once it ia found will be convince people in scientific communities to adapt. In many fields nowdays ( particle physics and machine learning for example) it is standard and norm to publiah to Arxiv with the understanding that this is pre-reviewd platform for acceasing latest ideas more than latest research. Grad students, postdocs and professors all understand that. But usually there is requirements from fuding agencies to publish in traditional journals so you have to do it even it is not required logically. To illustrate that, lets consider a paper about latest results from ATLAS or CMS experiments at CERN. There are potentially at least internal review of a couple hundred physicists participated in discussion and authorship not to mention the period of public comments (there are thousands of people work in the experiment) after that you would apply to publish in physical review where the editor will assgn two or more reviewers to review that?. Usually there is not much comments but sometime happens but results usually gets announced before this and normally the published version would be important for citation purposes. I think the dynamics of each field would play an important rule of what can we change about current model. But peer review as a theoretical idea is important but not how is implemented. The issue lies also with the whole scientific publishing model that is controlled mostly by for-profit companies with peer review process being free service. Search on Twitter for example and you will find many complaints from reviewers that they get two or three papers and being asked to review them and provide a report over a weekend or a very tight schedule in general while doing this for free. Changing the model would require pressure on funding agencies and publishing journals. Academics who rely on publications for promoted and being number one qualifications in most of benefits or eveb prestige are not suitable to lead this pressure at least until public pressure is applied on universities and research facilities to tackle this problem.