I have come across an excellent video on the peer review process at Biomed Central, which I thoroughly reocommend.
There are particularly good points from Greg Petsko, as well as Joshua Sanes and Laurie Goodman.
One of Greg Petsko’s excellent points, which echoes the frustrations vented in a number of my posts (some examples here and here), is that editors really need to act like editors, not just some sort of conduit. That is, they need to make decisions based on evidence, not on some sort of commercial game in acquiring a false auro of prestige for their journal.
Joshua Sanes identifies the gross non-linearity between the perception of journal prestige and the actual difference in the quality and importance of the papers published in these and other journals.
One important point they have missed, which I believe is key, is the post publication peer review, now in its nascent form at PubPeer.com. Editors need to act on community concerns, not simply stick their heads in the sand or issue yet another euphemistic mega correction, something I discuss in a number of posts, the most recent of which is here.