Is there a better alternative to the peer review system in scientific research?

When scientists do experiments, the way we communicate our findings is to write a paper outlining what we did and what we found, and send it to a journal. The journal then asks several experts in that particular field to read the paper and decide if what was done was scientifically sound, and if the conclusions are justified. If the reviewers all agree, your paper is published in the journal, and future scientists will refer to your paper and build off your findings.

I think this process tends to work reasonably well, but it has a couple major flaws. For instance, if you’re asked to review the work of someone you know and like, chances are you’re going to go easier on it. Or, if the findings of the paper you’re reviewing reflect well on your OWN findings, you’ll probably look more favorably on it.

And it goes the other way, too. You’ll probably be a lot harder on something that contradicts your own findings/interpretation, or someone you don’t know or don’t like.

But without peer review, people can just say whatever crazy shit they want, send it to the journal, and it’s now “science.”

Is there a better alternative? I can’t think of one, myself, so I’d love to hear some ideas.