Read the abstract of the research article and look for the most important graphic / table. Does it support the abstract of the article? Does it even support the caption of the figure? Ctr+F for some keywords, like "control group", "exclusion criteria", "almost statistically significant". Try to find out if they are using some "interesting" method to filter the data.
Use some back of the envelope statistic, like comparing the difference, variance and Sqrt(N). Count how many results are statistically significant and how many are reported. How many implicit results are not reported? Also, are there some results with an incredible small error?
There are just too many predatory journals and bad journals with a peer review that is a joke. Unless it's a journal in your area, just ignore the journal and look at the data. And even some serious journals publish bad articles.
I use a modified version of the crackpot index were the article starts with +5 points https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
In god we trust, all others must bring data.
Abstract and conclusions. The middle if it seems interesting, followed by looking for related research to confirm the conclusions.
Most people don't have the skills to do this, we need better science journalism.
(We also have an incentive problem for science, but that is another problem.)
It's the sane approach.