I often find that my views diverge from Eric's. And here we go again!
Publishing in philosophy is a way of getting your work to the readers you want to reach. People in unpopular fields often find that launching a niche journal is the best way to do this. This is the practice Eric calls "journal capture." What exactly is wrong with it? Especially in these days of self-publishing. If I want to get a paper out there, I post it on PhilPapers. With the right keywords, it gets an audience. Completely unrefereed. And that audience is probably just as big as when I publish in a journal. Since this is so, why is refereeing so important in journals where you have to submit to an editor?
Of course, there is a risk. As I have noted elsewhere (following Linsay Waters), universities use publication in prestigious journals as a substitute for serious evaluation. (This has been going on for a long time: G. E. Moore was denied a job because of a referee report, and the same referee recommended against publication in Mind.) And it would (perhaps) be a bad thing if publication was rigged leading to tenure and promotion on rigged evidence. (Or maybe it would just force universities to be less lazy.)
But what's another reason why refereeing has to be transparent? Editors need advice on what is worth publishing. Why does this advice have to manufactured in some supposed haven of neutrality?