you can be properly authenticated but not authorized, whatever it means in the context (something like not competent?) trusted journals are trusted for their competence in filtering crap out, not for being able to prove that authors are really authors.

Sure but it feels like there is some close relation there: proving an author is genuine and proving the author is producing genuinely valuable work wrt some given publication's specific audience.

If one were to build a system along that line, meant to replace prestigious academic journals of today, of course it would be gamed. But isn't the general consensus that the current system already is being gamed and usually at expense of the researchers doing valuable research and the public at large?