I think it always has.
You may have heard of the site RetractionWatch, which tracks academic paper retractions. It’s important, because it helps keep the search for knowledge more on track. Now we have PeerReviewWatch, from London’s City University, helping us learn whether peer review is a reasonable way to move science forward. I have argued for years that peer review should not undergo peer review, it should simply be gotten rid of. There are better ways to do science, which you can read about in Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Inadequate Equilibria. One of the most important ways we can improve science is to create betting markets (see previous post) on research outcomes.
I encourage you to book mark PeerReviewWatch and watch them review peer review: