We should distinguish communicating established science from creating new science and from checking new science by peers.

I am sure new internet tech like wikis, reddit or /. style comment systems, online version control, dropbox, etc. is helping people create better. Blogs seem great for communicating to laypeople, and marketing your stuff.

I think the dominant forces that establish peer review as a different process from what you envision are:

(a) academics function on a dual currency: $$$ and kudos, and guard kudos jealously

(b) there are personal rivalries within fields, but we still need to get work done

(c) quality peer review takes a long time, and people often view it as a chore

I am not aware of any problem w/ journals/peer review that internet tech conclusively solves, because all these problems are either social (can't solve social problems w/ tech), or are due to the fact that proper peer review is hard and takes a long time. I reviewed a paper with a 50 page proof before.