It sounds like research needs to be held accountable to some kind of standard for accuracy or quality.
So I think the answer is gatekeeping needs to be different -- not less.
An experiment by the NIPS conference in 2014 found that ~60% of submissions are in the "gray middle" - not obviously great or obviously crap.
In more detail: they split the PC in two, and had 10% of papers (166) reviewed by both halves. Each half had to accept ~37 papers. The halves disagreed on 21 accepted papers [1].
So yeah, if your submission is sciencey, it's the flip of a coin whether peer review will accept it.
I don't think we want /r/science moderators determining what is accepted research. But there must be some way to democratize the process short of waiting for the perfect AGI to moderate publications.