The present system for peer review and publishing is a major obstacle against progress in science. Here are some of the problems:

1 The publication process is terribly slow
2 Poor quality of reviewers work causes random results
3 Censorship prevents or delays new findings
4 Some important findings are not published at all
5 Quasi science is created
6 Quality of publications decreased

Below, I will comment upon the points and also suggest an alternative

General:
In other parts of the society, it has been found that censorship corrupts the society, while freedom of talk and writing stimulates progress. There is no reason to think that science is an exception. We all know about the attempts to stop knowledge about the earth orbiting the sun a few hundred years ago. Below are some more specific comments.

1 The publication process is terribly slow
The time from submission of a paper until it appears in print is rarely much less than one year and sometimes. One could compare with W. Röntgen’s detection of the X-rays. Three months after the manuscript was submitted, the experiments were repeated at dozens of places around Europe. And two years later, diagnostic X-ray equipment was in use as far away as in northern India. With our present speed of publication, the original paper would barely be out of press at that time.

2 Poor quality of reviewers work causes random results.
The reviewers may make a poor job without anyone knowing who did it. In the same paper, I have got the judgement excellent from one reviewer and unacceptably poor from another. The last one obviously did not even know the fundamental thermodynamic equations. The probability for two poor reviewers of the same paper is far too high.

3 Censorship prevents or delays new findings
Sometimes, a paper is reviewed by someone working along similar lines. It is then very tempting to delay (or prevent) the publication until one’s own results have appeared. Without doubt such cases have happened.

4 Some important findings are not published at all
One of the most important findings during the second half of the last century was never published at all, because all reviewers wrongly judged it as impossible. According to a member of the Swedish Nobel Prize committee, this discovery (oscillating reactions) would with certainty have given a Nobel Prize, if the finding had been published. As it turned out, it was eventually published after his death by one of his students, who had to publish it on a non-chemical journal, as it was still rejected by chemical journals.

5 Quasi science is created
The most well known example is creationism. People with that opinion, never are able to publish their qritique of the more common view. So their opinions are not discussed by the scientific community. Consequently, a sub culture is created, in which the ideas are published and accepted without discussion.

6 Quality of publications decreased
The limited amount of space prevents publication of important information. An example is that raw data are rarely published, and yet they are often needed by other researchers.

A better alternative for scientific publication:
After a submitted paper has been reviewed and modified as far as the author finds reasonable, it should be published. But the reviewer’s comments too should be published at the same time. The name of the reviewer should be published as well. Then, the judgement will be handed over to the readers, who will also be able to give their comments both on the paper and the review.

A further advantage of such a system is that the review works can be used in c.v. of the reviewer.