Academic Calvinball

My only evidence is anecdotal or drawn from my own experience, and so I don't really know where to begin writing about this more globally, but the double-blind peer review of journal articles, which is held up as the sine qua non of judgment, quality control and  is badly, objectively, broken. It seems as though everybody will acknowledge it behind closed doors, and yet that's still the only thing that counts in the review process. Something needs to change, because the system as it is right now only serves the intellectual status quo ante and the whims of a favored few. I feel like I'm playing a game for my livelihood and my professional life but I don't know the rules because they keep changing and we never get to play the same way twice.