Peer review is useful, no doubt. It is only reviewer anonymity that probably should be re-examined.
There would probably be a need for a mechanism to ensure objectivity. E.g., if Reviewer A rejects Reviewer B, there may be a higher chance Reviewer B will reject Review A's future work, just out of spite.
As a consumer of papers now, I find peer review pretty useful. I can’t read everything that comes out. Even if I just read abstracts, I need some sort of filter. Publication in a top tier journal raises the probability that egregious errors haven’t been made and that the paper is worthy of my time.