I think when discussing peer review, many people are very quick to talk about the negatives (yes, there are many). However, the Sokal Affair is an example of why peer review is necessary.
In 1996, Social Text (the name of the journal) did not conduct peer review because its editors believed that an open editorial policy would stimulate more original, less conventional research. Fair enough… But looked what happened. They published an article that was absolute non-sense.
The editors said they considered it poorly written but published it because they felt Sokal was an academic seeking their intellectual affirmation, which exemplifies the potential bias of these journals.
I think with anything, there’s going to be pros and cons. I think when critiquing anything we must keep in mind the pros, and use the cons to make whatever we are critiquing better.