The current state of things is that one has to collect many papers about certain hypothesis and analyse them on his own to get any idea of the what the truth ma

The current state of things is that one has to collect many papers about certain hypothesis and analyse them on his own to get any idea of the what the truth may be -- neither the IF nor good names guarantees anything, on the other hand you can find real marvels in some obscure conference proceedings. This way I doubt we should give even more complex decision-making and responsibility to the editors; I would rather go for forcing better reproducibility of papers and more open reviewing -- publishing reviews, opening up for more, yet shallow reviews (like lab protocol goes to a biologist, result evaluation goes to a statistician, possible impact goes to some recognised figure in the field) and making publication of comments and rebuttals easier.