Some people argue we might consider abolishing (or at least ignoring) institutionalized peer review, e.g. Liam Kofi Bright. The blog post/Arxiv model seems to work reasonably well with no fees or formal referees, and was more or less how science worked in previous centuries. What's more, if formal peer review can't prevent something like the modern replication crisis, and creates publishing incentives widely acknowledged to be pathological, is it really that valuable?