This is part of a larger debate that the world's been having for the last seven years or so about whether social media should be filtered, moderated. People have tried to do such things and try to have committees and advisory boards to assess accuracy of scientific medical fill in the blank information on Twitter. But science does not seem to work that way, or at least it didn't in the past. And I think your point about, say, alchemy or other efforts, they failed and the marketplace of ideas, judge them harshly.
Psychologist Adam Mastroianni says peer review has failed. Papers with major errors make it through the process. The ones without errors often fail to replicate. One approach to improve the process is better incentives. But Mastroianni argues that peer review isn't fixable. It's a failed experiment. Listen as he makes the case to EconTalk host Russ Roberts for a new approach to science and academic research.