I was reading this article on The Guardian about scientific publishing and peer-review process. The author raises a fair number of concerns with the existing model, most of which I agree with. The article ends with the following statement:
... but the need for reform is profound.
I ended up thinking about this idea, a reform in the way we do science. By doing science I mean the whole process of writing, submitting, reviewing, publishing and measuring the results of our work (and not the actual work itself).
While I agree with the author about the current system being faulty, sick, or corrupt (depending on the shade of glasses you look at it), I cannot really come up with a system that would magically solve the existing problems just like that.
The Arxiv idea is named in the article and from what I understand people in physics and math quite enjoy the benefits of that site (whatever it is) however with the amount of money and prestige involved, I cannot imagine how it would be implemented in fields like biology, chemistry and medicine.
To sum things up, my question is whether or not there are/have been alternative models to the existing one: blind, peer-review, hundred of journals, and metrics of "quality" flying left and right. If so which shortcomings of the existing model were amended?