OK, I think you have two laudable goals, but that combining them may not be the way to go. But having any or all of the following in place can be a really motivating, or at least culturally useful thing to have in an organization...
1 - Peer Review for Quality
When I first read the subject, I thought "peer review" as in traditional code review - a person works a particularly critical technical area, other people review and give feedback the feedback is addressed with some level of rigor before the work is considered "finished". Peers look for various flaws - sometimes general, sometimes a particular checklist - ideally both.
I find these tremendously useful and almost a must have in a high risk area where a lack of quality will lead to drastically bad results. This is the same idea as having a pal read a paper before you submit it -- you can live too much inside your own head and a second set of eyes can radically improve that problem.
When I first saw "Peer Review" this is what I thought you meant. They can be applied to more than just code - reading through a problem resolution can be just as useful, if there is something to be learned and improved from the insightful critique. The key is that both peers are working to the same goal - better quality for the product or service.
2 - Peer Appreciation
Absolutely there is something to be said for having succeeded in the eyes of your peers. Having a way to have team members give each other a more formal "atta boy" (cause you don't really need a system for people to informally praise each other) - is a great thing. It gives people the power of reinforcement, it's a really great morale boost, and it doesn't take much cash.
My favorites were cases where peers gave each other tokens (freely requestable) and some number of tokens could be cashed in for gift cards and such. It abstracted the money a tad bit, but still put a value on the tokens. And by controlling the token to stuff ratio, the company could throttle the gifts if they get out of control. Usually there is a modest form of paperwork - like you have to write down the giver, the receiver and what was so cool about the receiver's work. That means that people have just a little bit of a demotivator from giving tokens just because of common courtesy.
3 - "360 degree review"
A form of feedback that goes the whole way around (thus the name) - the idea being that the sum total of a good job well done is not just pleasing your boss, but being good with your boss, your peers and any subordinates. This site did the best I've seen at not just selling the idea, but giving tips and tricks.
I haven't done such a thing - I'd like to, and probably will in my current company. But I participated in giving feedback for a boss at one point. No big change there, but none required - the guy was a great boss, I really liked working for him, I said so. So I'm rather glad he didn't change!!
I strongly suggest reading the guidance on this one - they make some really good points in the down side section and then recommend ways to work around the down side as best as can be done.
Two things - the focus and the mechanism - are important to figure out here. the three examples I gave have three purposes - one is quality work, one is a way for people to reward each other, one is a way to provide meaningful feedback as a way to improve job performance. All three are good goals, all three are important, all three can be implemented with great success. But if you implement without knowing your driving goal, you are likely to create a system that does no good, and potentailly does much harm. From reading your question, I don't get a sense that you know - it could be to improve issue tracking or issue handling. It could be to give others a chance to assess their peers. It could be a way of assessing job performance.
Mechanism - particularly when it comes to feedback for job performance as it relates to incentive payouts and employee promotions - you have to suck it up and be the boss. Having guided feedback as a way to motivate and improve employees has some real merit, but there is a rubber meets the road aspect when it comes to money.
In particular - rewarding work with (big) money is not about pleasing your coworkers or doing a good job in the estimates of your peers - it's also about aiding the business in reaching it's goals in such a way that more pay or a promotion is warranted. I know that comes down to sounding like a lot of hot air - but the thing is - if a guy is helping the business grow or maintain itself - he shoudl be paid more than the guy who isn't doing as much... if we don't find a way (as managers) to incentivize people in this direction, we will end up with a failing business. So the final judgement here has to be a managerial one. Employees do not hold the same responsibility, nor are they accountable for budget.
So if there was one thing to avoid like the plague it would be forming a direct, unambiguous connection between peer reviews and payment/promotion.
As a manager, do I take into account an employees impact on his peers? Absolutely. Do I ask them about their relationships and guage the level of respect & complaints I get response knowing what I know about the work and the personalities involved? Absolutely. Do I have a spreadsheet or other connecting point between peer feedback and salaries? No way, never ever in a million years. Cause there's too many other factors.