I came across this Science letter to the editor about a “gradual peer review process” by the associate editor for Plant Signalling and Behavior, Communicative and Integrative Biology; it’s pretty interesting:
…Many scientists–particularly those who are well established and thus in demand–are less willing to review because of the time required to evaluate the many manuscripts they receive.
In standard reviewing practice, editors send manuscripts simultaneously to several reviewers, whose comments are considered by the editor and then sent back to the author. A basic drawback to this process is that for many manuscripts, all reviewers have to spend time on a text with many problems. Moreover, making trivial corrections may distract reviewers from more substantive critiques.
…I have decided to change the classic review process into a gradual one. I send submitted manuscripts to a single reviewer and then ask the author to make revisions before I send the paper to the other reviewers. Later reviewers can thus focus on important aspects of the study rather than deal redundantly with trivial problems in the text. This process seems to result in better final papers, and it saves time for all reviewers except for the first. Because reviewer order varies, a broad adoption of this process would save time for many scientists in the form of easier reading and shorter evaluation letters to the editors. This tactic could save precious reviewing time and increase the general willingness to review manuscripts.
It seems reasonable to me, if you can find reviewers to do this.