They already had this. It's called citing your sources and peer review.
Having read countless research papers that fit your criteria, I can tell you that citing your sources and being peer reviewed are not nearly sufficient. They're necessary steps, to be sure, but I've read more than my fair share of papers from conferences or journals, some even associated with reputable organizations, that were nothing but complete bunk. What you need are citations to trustworthy sources and to be reviewed by trustworthy peers.
The point of citations and peer review is NOT that it is a one-step solution. It is, rather, a way to enable readers to do the second, third, and fourth steps which will lead to a better appreciation of value (or lack thereof) in the work at hand. It is also a way to identify small cliques who refer only to themselves, and to identify multiple mistakes based on a single lie/misconception/myth.
It is telling that the original article assures us that 'the intention is not to be political', because modern political speech rarely tracks back to citations that deserve trust. A case in point is the flawed 'weapons of mass destruction' claims made before the 2003 Iraq invasion: when sources of that information WERE finally examined, there were many embarassments. What benefits could a better information review have offered? Sadly, we cannot know.
Secrecy, and small cliques reasoning in circles were the way of alchemy; science is better. Citations and peer review is why. And, it can work in other fields of ideation.
As for 'trustworthy peers', there's a conundrum. In science, we needn't have trustworthy peers, because authority is not a person, it is an observation. Galileo was forced to recant, but his published observations of the moons of Jupiter were just as authoritative afterward. The authority of a person is an unsteady basis; the absence (or death) of such a 'king' is a cause of uncertainty, which science does not feel deeply, though politics does.