Peer reviews don't appear in Google Scholar.
The involvement of governments is when they force the public to pay for the studies via tax funded grants, without caring about the quality.
The involvement of governments is when they force the public to pay for the studies via tax funded grants, without caring about the quality.
I also think that it sounds like a good idea to hold scientists accountable for the quality of their research, but moving away from fraud (which should unquestionably be punished) towards merely "low quality" is a very slippery slope. Who determines when the quality is good enough and under which criteria? Citations and follow-up research already are an approximate signal, why is that not enough? Proving a study false does not automatically make it low quality. How much money and resources would these additional measures cost? Would the savings from fewer "bad quality studies" offset these costs? How many fewer "good quality studies" would be prevented by redirecting these resources.