Yes, but there is just not a way to regulate journals other then by market forces - which seem to fail through information asymmetry about the journal quality and maybe some monopoly inducing positive feedback effects.
Maybe law could break the information asymmetry between sellers and buyers of the journals by adding new clauses to the copyrighted works of state-sponsored scientists...
How about if say, Harvard, Stanford, MIT & Caltech made a pronouncement that from now none of their academics should submit research for publication in journal X on the grounds that journal X lacks commitment to being a scientific journal and it would diminish their reputations as academic institutions to have any association with that journal. Then canceled their libraries subscriptions to that journal in public, demanded a full refund and generally made a fuss in the newspapers. The NYT would print the fuss.
I think that would change the dynamic of Scientific Journals pretty quickly. Pick one of the worst, get the evidence together, ring your opposite number at a couple of places that have similar numbers of nobel prize winners and go right at the rubbish journals with the wrecking ball having the reputation of being a place where the world's best research is being conducted.
Maybe law could break the information asymmetry between sellers and buyers of the journals by adding new clauses to the copyrighted works of state-sponsored scientists...