Good point. However, the primary value of peer review is to reject bad papers. Does science benefit when authors can shuffle a rejected paper to another journal and tweak the results to hide the initial criticism? To me, the real value of reviews is making sure that bad studies never see the light of day (under the current system).

Personally, I am interested in seeing a model where all papers are submitted to a public archive and reviewed publicly (and optionally anonymously). The high profile journals would shift to providing value-added curation, formatting, and commentary.