I suspect there would be a lot less research, but perhaps whatever papers made it to the finish line, they would be much more meaningful ?
R&D is always going to be a sunk cost, especially when exploring "new frontiers". Funding people to "waste their time" going down different uncharted paths - with most of them leading to dead-ends - is still the only way to have a few return with new insight from those paths that led to new and wondrous areas.
You can already see this at the scale of "what" government chooses to fund. For years they have funded cancer research which has made many advances, but they did not fund "ageing" research anywhere close to as much. Recent advances in the latter have shown this to be a promising field, but imagine the advances we could have had had this been funded to the same extent that cancer research has!
It seems that the incentive of a journal is to maintain an appearance of legitimacy, rather than actually enforcing it. This is why, as the article mentions, journals tend to be fairly quiet about retractions and issues of misconduct.
There is a better incentive by those that are funding the research (the taxpayers/government) that their investments are resulting in legitimate works. This also goes in line with the idea that these final manuscripts should be freely available to the public. Now with that said, I also acknowledge that the idea of having the NIH, NSF. etc. operate the editorial and review process would be nightmarish.