Joe Pickrell puts forward an argument against peer review: "Why publish science in peer-reviewed journals?"
In this post, I will argue that cutting journals out of scientific publishing to a large extent would be unconditionally a good thing, and that the only thing keeping this from happening is the absence of a “killer app”.
The comment thread is extensive and worth reading. A point that deserves more attention is the completely thankless task of reviewing papers. Review could be an opportunity for engagement and collaboration, but in the current system it is unrewarded and frequently ignored.