It takes of order 6 months to do the work described in a single paper. Even if we imagine someone watching the videos at double speed, it would take 3 months per paper. And that's for an expert who can understand the material.
Folks don't have the time to read the literature thoroughly as it is. That's one of the reasons the junk gets published. So this is not practical.
Plus, imagine reporting to your funding agency, Dean, or boss, that all you accomplished this year was to watch a few videos. No new work of your own. I guess you would make a video of you watching a video. And then someone would watch a video of you watching a video ...
My guess is that more than half of the world's scientific resources are spent on projects in bad faith, so I'm actually ok with legitimate scientists spending 100% more to justify their papers, if the extra work can be covered by the surplus resources saved by eliminating frauds. However, there are many reasons the proposed method is impractical.
Folks don't have the time to read the literature thoroughly as it is. That's one of the reasons the junk gets published. So this is not practical.
Plus, imagine reporting to your funding agency, Dean, or boss, that all you accomplished this year was to watch a few videos. No new work of your own. I guess you would make a video of you watching a video. And then someone would watch a video of you watching a video ...