[raxxorraxor]

I think the mechanism in the scientific community that allows progress are just multiple perspectives.

The version where there is one scientific authority that sets these guardrails is prone to fail and does that quite reliably. Different faculties have different requirements for their scientific work, but even here the established players often become a problem. The power of journals and their reputation can be detrimental, but as long as there is competition, it should work.

I think some field are less vulnerable here than others. You cannot just deliver scientific work in sociology/political science. You will have to fight a lot of people who will disagree for ideological reasons. These are by nature distinct from discussion about what color some gluon needs to have in some theoretical particle, although you have entirely "people focused conflicts" here as well.

But overall you should never put your belief in guardrails. They will be wrong and the next ostracized scientist was right in the end. The only relevant content is indeed the one in the scientific work itself. Whom you delegate them to evaluate them for you is a personal matter and no institution alone can take up this task.