Exactly. One improvement could be that the authors have a chance to submit an updated version of the manuscript or even related/follow on studies. I am not sure maybe it is already possible.

Basically preprints with recognizable expert commentaries.

That's also true. People could start thinking, "yeah, somebody would approve it."

I like open peer commentary employed by Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Cambridge). Basically, the paper is published with 20-40 expert commentaries. I find it quite useful as different experts evaluate the paper in terms of different aspects. A reviewer was not expected to be expert at everything.

In my case they asked us to suggest a list of reviewers three times, which we did. Still had no luck. I just remembered the relief and joy in the editor's email, stating that they finally found somebody 😁

I was trying to say

" I agree shotgun approach does not look or sound nice, but still could be the best one for the sake of authors..."

I completely agree. The whole publication system must be established from scratch.

A paper of mine was once stalled for over 6 months as editors could not find a reviewer and a colleague recently told that it has been almost a year for their paper, but still could be the best chance for the sake of authors. I don't think we should be offended by that..

Prof. Gina Rippon also mentions about this in her book "Gendered Brain".