Was it me who said Peer Review is too often "Lions reviewed by Donkeys" ?

I guess it was.

I mean that all too often 'cutting edge' research  - paradigm-shifting research - will be rejected by normal science reviewers.

Instead, a scholar's work should be posted online and judged, over time, by a jury of all of their peers the whole world around, not just by six anonymous ( and usually over-worked) colleagues.

If it stands up, then, and only then, should it be considered for formal review by a senior journal in their field....

Journal Atherosclerosis may be more dangerous than atherosclerosis itself - to your science career

STATINs vs EGGs

If you are a friend of the statin industry, enduring a successfully peer-review in Elsevier's journal Atherosclerosis must be like being beaten by marshmallows : the true peer-review, much more savage, only happens when your article emerges in the real world and in blogs.

rise of THINK TANKs closely followed rise of rigorous PEER-REVIEW

Junk Science is the Think Tank's raison d'etre

If you got away with JUNK SCIENCE before 1945 - and many academics did because rigorous peer-review before publication was not actually all that common back then - increasingly you couldn't so after 1945.

Second rate and lazy scientists and academics who couldn't cut the mustard, cut classes - bailed out of academic life after they had established a few credentials and swam - like rats - to the rising ships of the anti-peer-review-oriented think tanks.