I believe many journals focusing on potentially influential papers is why we have a reproducibility crisis. Since it is very hard to publish null results, people often don't even bother trying. This leads to tons of wasted effort as multiple groups attempt the same thing not knowing that others before them have failed.

Also, predicting whether a paper will be influential is very hard and inherently subjective, unless you are reviewing something truly groundbreaking. Quality-based reviews are also subjective, but less so.