Highly regarded scientific journals like the Lancet are used to accelerate this weighting process.
The problem is that nowadays they seem kind of outdated, opaque and corrupt on many levels.
Nobody wants to suppress peer-review, simply replace the journals mafia with something less corrupt.
In my opinion, the best option for everybody who's serious about this is to read a lot of papers, until you become "well-calibrated", i.e. when you have a good handle on the overall chances a preprint is true, vs. a Twitter thread, vs. a paper in a top-tier journal. This has to be learned from experience. Reform doesn't change the fact that you need to do this -- it just adds yet another venue, either more or less reliable than the previous ones, that you also need to become calibrated on.
In order to do this, those that are serious need to be able to access papers, but paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for Elsevier can put them out of reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz