various ideas about journal review processes e.g. in academia, and related/replacement systems

discussion between reviewers and author

there should be an online back-and-forth between the reviewers and the authors, rather than just one or two rounds of high-latency emailed comments via the editor. This would allow the authors to explain things that the reviewers are wrong about.

different voting thresholds for different criteria

e.g. you could have a 'correctness' criteria that is consensus (any reviewer can veto based on correctness), and an 'interest' criteria that is nomination (any reviewer, or any pair of reviewers, can nominate an article as interesting; it doesn't matter if most reviewers think its uninteresting), and a 'quality' criteria (including comprehensiveness, e.g. 'nothing's incorrect in what you said but you need to also discuss __') that is majority-vote

(lots of other things you could do with 'interest', too)