Does peer review continue to be the best standard for ascertaining whether a manuscript is suitable for publication?

I am sure that all of us have encountered peer reviewers who are neither 'peers' in the true spirit of the word, or even good reviewers based on the quality of their reviews.  However, most (?almost all) journal editors are somewhat reluctant to look past a reviewers recommendation and exercise their editorial prerogative.  As a result, good research suffers! So what can be done? I don't have an answer but am looking for insightful comments/options. Thanks.