Normal peer review works by submitting the article to the appropriate journal, suggesting some preferred reviewers that have expertise in the subject, after which the rest of the process ideally is then orchestrated by an experienced editor.

If a journal receives a paper that is unreadable, it is outright rejected with the comment that it should be made readable, regardless the results in that paper. What is the point of having results if you are unable to convince your audience of those results? You could just as well just sit on them and never communicate them. What is harmful about this process?