Pre-publication peer review, most of the time, marginally improves a manuscript at the cost ~6 months. Some times it's just a place for reviewers to vent off stress and punch down. The real corkers get weeded out by the editors before the paper goes out to review.
Although some are frauds, but their theory is new, they get passed. No one bother to test the theory because no journal will accept such boring validation paper.
Last thing to mention is that the count of pages do not matter. It is not an excuse to refuse to publish great work from scientist.
Better to have an acknowledged reality that, until some time has passed with legitimate comments, updates, and ideally reproduction, the published papers are to be regarded with full skepticism.
Journals are eager to publish new studies as facts (did you know that eating sugar will make you lose weight???) (ignoring that all those who were studied were pro byciclers burning off 3000 calories a day)
this will just make it worse, because a bit larger amount of bad papers will get publushed