In most of the sciences at least the journal doesn't do much of that. The editor might do a quick screen to weed out terrible papers, but most get sent off to unpaid peer reviewers who do most of the hard work. There aren't "staffs of experts" and they don't really work with the authors. However, in other areas things might work differently.

One more reason why this is so irritating, is that the publishers hardly have to pay anyone. The scientists writing the papers do so for free, and often have to do the final print formatting themselves. The paper is then sent to the peer reviewers, who perform the reviews for free. In the end, the publisher doesn't pay for content, layout or review, so the journals don't have good reasons to be expensive. Things will gradually change, but it's taking a long time simply because scientists want their name in a big name journal.

One of the problems with such devices is that they don't report the percentage of false positives. This is a much bigger problem than false negatives, since there are more people who are negative (don't have lung cancer) than positive (have lung cancer). It's generally considered very bad to tell someone that they have cancer and then later say "Sorry, but we made a mistake." Though that's good news for them, they get upset that you told them the false bad news first. However, early diagnosis of lung cancer is an important area and if they made progress toward that then I applaud them.

Do you think that they should have similar programs to get males into areas where they are typically underrepresented (nursing, etc.)?

Actually, even in countries where polygamy is legal, members of the LDS church are not allowed to practice it and will be thrown out of the church.