A fun system would be: you 'have to' peer review publicly a (part of a) paper (at least) when you cite it in your paper. So that often cited paper get a lot of

A fun system would be: you 'have to' peer review publicly a (part of a) paper (at least) when you cite it in your paper. So that often cited paper get a lot of different (small) public reviews that can be curated from time to time, obscure papers get at least one review justifying why it's relevant to cite them in the new work. Some could argue that this is too much work added to the writing process.. But.. At the same time.. Shouldn't we read the papers we cite? Why not automatically write a small review of it? It has not to be huge, only the justification on why we (can) use it in our work.