Nah, people will just come up with different (probably broader) heuristics when reviewing.
We have a past example of this in the US, too. Certain countries have historically had a huge problem with paper mills. Because of this, most people in the US/EU do have a negative bias once they see the author affiliations of those countries. Yes, it isn't fair to researchers who aren't pulling some shenaniganry. But it is a common shortcut; the sixth or seventh time you've spent a few hours reviewing a paper filled with bullshit, you probably would develop it too.
I imagine we will see similar things come up: the most obvious I can think of is, if it's not a well-known institution then it might be bullshit.
Hell, we are already seeing something similar in FOSS, where many high profile projects have completely banned AI contributions due to all the low effort slop PRs.
- it did not work before because greed
- will not work anymore because AI
Is human science dead?