All of those solutions assumes that an objective rating exists. There might just not be one.
This issue reeks with the rank smell of base politics and in/out group dynamics, and humans have been fighting, in the abstract, these issues since the time Egyptians were building the pyramids.
How can there possibly be an "objective rating" when career advancement, peer respect, and big money all are in the mix depending upon results?
In other words objectives are deceiving and rating is based on objectives.
Example: mRNA inventor being sidelined at her university when her method wasn't famous
Example2: Schmidhuber inventing stuff and being forgotten because data and compute were just too small back then
It's all about building a diverse collection of stepping stones. Any new discovery might seem useless and we can't tell which are going to matter years later, but we need the diversity to hedge against the unknown.
Take for example a paper that presents a very innovative method, but with subpar results; and another one that presents an incremental improvement on some existing method, but with results that advance the state of the art. Which is better?
Even if you ask knowledgeable, careful and honest reviewers, you will get contradictory responses, because it's highly subjective whether you rate originality as more important than results or vice versa (and other factors, like whether you think the first method can eventually be improved to be useful or not, which is often just an educated guess). I see this happening all the time, and I don't think it's something that can be "fixed", it's just how humans work.