Food coloring & hyperactivity?

[Dr Mordrid]

Yes he does largely support peer review, but the system has major problems and those fixes are necessary. Boston U's medical Deans published on the medical aspect in 2004. Some of their major issues with peer review;

Link....

What Are the Problems with Peer Review?

Delay in Publication. The peer review step adds one to three months to the time between submission of a paper and its publication.

Reviewer Misconduct. Reviewers working in the scientific area of the paper may deliberately delay returning their review or give the editor an unfairly negative critique in an attempt to delay publication so that the reviewer’s laboratory can publish related research first. Editors who become suspicious that a reviewer is indulging in such misconduct will remove the individual from their list of reviewers, but it is difficult to be certain of the reasons for a delayed or hostile review. In any case damage already has been done to the paper under consideration.

In the physical sciences the situation is often worse. The Office of Research Integrity tries, but they're swimming upstream.

[Brian Ellis]

I think you're optimistic with 3 months. In most cases, the reviewer(s) will suggest changes and the total process can last 12 months, easily.

I disagree with deliberate delays. Every peer review I have done, the editor gives a rigid deadline for comments. If you do not respect it, it is assumed you have found nothing to comment on. On papers I have submitted for publication, the editor has usually kept me informed of reviewers' deadlines. The last paper I had published in a peer-review journal was an invited one and the peer reviewer (there was only one) did the review within a few days, making a couple of useful suggestions. I resubmitted a few days later and he re-reviewed immediately, so that the journal containing it was published in less than three months from initial submission: a record in my experience.

But, yes, delays are inevitable to keep up the quality.

[Dr Mordrid]

In medicine there is a problem known as "sham peer review". Though it's not a paper review system it has some features I've seen in them. This Wikipedia article is pretty much self explanatory.

[Brian Ellis]

Happily, have seen nothing like that. On two occasions, when peer-reviewing, I have suggested "unfit for publication": on one occasion it was because there was nothing new in the proposed paper, which was supposed to be original research. The other time, it was downright plagiarism of another's work. The other reviewers agreed. Neither author lost public status, but I was wary when the first one submitted a paper on the same subject a year or two later. In this case, he cited references for previous work and added some original work. I passed that one for publication.