Much has been written about the peer review process and its flaws. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal has stated that since peer-review doesn’t work, we shouldn’t do it
I have recently come across another example of the flaws in peer review. I reviewed a manuscript last year and identified what I believed to be technical problems and suggested at least major revision. The other two reviewers agreed; the three of us had homed in independently on the same technical issues.
Move forward a year and the paper is published in another (equally “prestigious”) journal, no changes.
So I will now amend my New Year resolution (still holding firm) from 2014 and 2015.
In addition to only reviewing for open access journals, I will from now on only review for journals where the review is open and published or where I am free to publish the review. That, at least, will avoid the ethical tension between participating in anonymous peer-review and then wanting to publish the critique when nothing has changed in the paper.
Why Groundhog day? This is not the first time I have had this experience.
Ferniglab Blog 
You could post your reviews to PubPeer. Not sure if there is any ethical reason not to although I’ve never done it myself.
I agree, but I would not do this, because in my view there is an unwritten agreement that the review is anonymous and I would not wish to break that. By accepting to review the manuscript in the first place, I have entered into an unwritten contract. It probably doesn’t have any legal basis, but much of what we do together in science is by mutual agreement. The fact that in hindsight I was stupid is common occurrence in my opinion and so is neither new nor important. What is important is to look at the evidence and develop a new approach. The more people who make such a change, the greater the momentum behind it.
[…] “…I will from now on only review for journals where the review is open and published or where I am free to publish the review,” writes Dave Fernig. […]