Peer review is shit. It's elitist, it's actively anti innovation and enforces the status quo.
Peer review should happen out in the open and not just be limited to academics.
Peer review should happen out in the open and not just be limited to academics.
The fact that it's not out in the open is somewhat complicated. You're perhaps right that it would lead to better outcomes, but it's also important that researchers feel free to speak openly.
This also fixes the problem of incompetent peer review, because it will be called out as such and the reviewer's reputation will suffer.
I don't think it's controversial though, isn't it commonly believed that increased transparency means less corruption? It might not be true, but if it's the prevailing belief then the burden of proof is in fact on you.