Of course, empirical verification has to be the deciding factor. But right now there is very little way to communicate the insights that many scientists have about which studies are reliable. We could be much more efficient in doing future studies if there were a way to collect assessments of those who work in closely related fields without taking years to get to know people well enough to get them to tell you their actual opinions even though they haven't been able to focus on that question to publish an article on the subject.
I don't think 'gambling' is the right word. And the devil is in the details. Any system like this is likely going to be gamed since careers and money are at stake. But the current publishing system is gamed all the time, so the new system doesn't have to be perfect. I just need a way to access some evaluations of a paper by others who have read it rather than figuring out all its problems on my own.
All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins