This article summarizes the UK situation. It mixes the journal publication and funding decision making. There is a nice flow chart that may be helpful.
This review article is a little scholarly. But it mentions something that is of center of the controversy about the peer review process—i.e., the pitfalls (bias, abuse, failure, costs).
This UK report reveals some ugly side of the peer review process to show how the sociological side of science can be messy and cloudy. Very interesting stuff.
This article touches upon something different and important: the role of author and how to communicate between author and peer reviewers. As peer review is designed to focus on content, the format issues are normally streamlined through the “guidelines” for authors.
This set of articles on BMJ deal with a very interesting issue—the openness of peer review. BMJ ventured the open review (i.e., the author will know the identity of the reviewer), while recognizing its limitation.