But peer review (circa 1965-2010[1]) is just the prior iteration of the problem[2]; the wave of crap[3] produced by publish or perish (crica 1950-present[4]). Rejecting papers by outsiders is irrelevant; the problem is we want to determine which papers are good/interesting/worth considering out of the fire hose of bilge, and, though we were already arguably failing at this, the problem just got harder.

(I say arguably, because there is always the old "try it yourself and see if it actually works" trick, but nobody seems to be fond of this; it smacks of "do your own research" and we're lazy monkeys at heart, who would much rather copy off of someone else's homework.)

[1] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=peer+review&ye...

[2] https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...

[3] https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

[4] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=publish+or+per...