I think, as others have already noted, that HubPages already provides a very worthwhile peer review process.
Not by name, but by functionality, via the various methods of rating able to be carried out by fellow Hubbers, who by definition are other writers, and thus peers.
It's also a reality based, real-time system, operated voluntarily, not by demand. Which adds to, rather than detracts from, its credibility and relevance.
It's further supplemented by an efficient process for collectively contributing to the removal of spun articles, and clearly substandard (objectively, not subjectively assessed) work, via the Hub Hopper.
You can't get a much more pure peer review system than that.
If on the other hand, you're talking about the widely held, but very wrong, perception that 'peer' equals 'superior', you may well find support from those who see themselves that way.
For myself, I'll be the first to form a group in opposition.
The existing comments section provides for those with the need to display their ego in public, but writers have the ability to deny such comments, and for those who feel the need (generally well-founded, and well-intentioned, I'm sure) to let a fellow Hubber know of a particular transgression, without causing hurt or embarrassment, the facility already exists to send the writer an email via Hubpages itself.
And finally, the introduction of individual user domains, not huddled beneath the HubPages identity, is designed to minimise the negative effect of any bad, or even just less commercial, work that does survive.
A perfect system? Nothing is. But it's not bad.
That's my tuppence worth, anyway. :)