Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth.

We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.

Paper reviews are traditionally blinded, so the reviewer doesn't know the authorship of the paper they're reading.

With the volume of outputs in today's academia, this is simply not possible. There are conferences with tens of thousands of submitted papers, grants have hundreds of pages, etc.

If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve the problem? Many researchers already find peer review requests annoying, they're not going to agree to hold a bunch of video calls.