Does peer review continue to be the best standard for ascertaining whether a manuscript is suitable for publication?

 Despite its shortcomings, peer review remains the foundation of scientific publishing because it offers a systematic method for subject-matter experts to contribute constructive criticism, validation, and quality control. However, I agree that it is far from flawless. Good research can be delayed or even derailed by reviewers who lack the requisite experience or who offer brief, biased, or useless remarks. The issue is made worse by editors' unwillingness to disregard poor reviews. 

 A number of strategies could be taken into consideration to fortify the system: 
Improved reviewer selection and training: To increase the caliber and consistency of reviews, editors should pair manuscripts with genuine subject-matter experts and give reviewers more precise instructions or training. 
Peer review that is open or transparent can increase accountability and decrease sloppy or biased assessments by making reviews (and the identity of the reviewers, if possible) publicly available. 
Editorial accountability: Instead of following the consensus, editors should be more independent and use their own discretion, particularly when reviews are unreliable, contradictory, or lack substance. 

Post-publication analysis and analysis Errors can be fixed, underappreciated assets can be brought to light, and the drawbacks of traditional review can be balanced by letting the larger community review and comment after publishing.
Appreciation and rewards for reviewers Reviewers may be encouraged to give more careful input and take the process more seriously if they receive official credit, diplomas, or academic recognition.
In summary, peer review is still the greatest standard available, but its efficacy hinges on how strictly it is applied and how open editors are to considering reviewer feedback as advice rather than an indisputable judgment.

 I think peer review remains the best standard for ensuring a manuscript's suitability for publication because it controls quality, engages experts, and provides feedback for improvements. However, the process can involve bias, inconsistency, and delays in disseminating findings. It might take a long time, but to get something extraordinary, patience is the best key to get an excellent reward. 

Surely , In my opinion the peer review will continue the best standards to ensure that the manuscript is suitable for publication because it is through the peer review that we (1)control the quality of the manuscript,(2)through the peer review, the expert in the filed are engaged, and (3)provision of feedback for improvements. However, the process may involve the bias, inconsistency from different reviewers as well as delay to disseminate the findings.