You are assuming that the author is in control of the review process, why can't that be part of scientific organisation or e.g. conferences. Actually preprints

You are assuming that the author is in control of the review process, why can't that be part of scientific organisation or e.g. conferences. Actually preprints already do this, the only difference is that things are typically finalized when things are published. Replication of particularly empirical research should be a center for a trust in results: it would incentivize authors to get more people to replicate your work. Also citations could rather serve as reviews instead of people blindly believing the peer review process and replicating often nonreplicatable truth. You have to acknowledge that research is largely in a replication and publication bias crisis. Also it is flooded with nonfunctional journals with intransparent review processes. So it is good to think how to change this. Not saying that this is the solution but I like that someone is taking a stand.