Mart Malakoff writes, Ideally, in my view, these forums would be a modern form of (or platform for) scientific research and communication. post 
There are 5 main platforms I see ---3 traditional, and 2 more modern. The traditional ones are
'the lone researcher' (e.g. Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein in part after he graduated, same with Marx, Rachel Carson) who work without much institutional support nor collaborators
'small research groups' mostly in universities who primarily interact face-to-face and work on a common subject problem
'traditional scientific journals' such as Science, Nature, Physical Review, J Theoretical Biology, Brain and Behavioral Sciences ---mostly non-open access, and often with long publication times (hence slow communication) ---where discussions are publications responding to each other often years apart
The modern ones are
'open access rapid publishing journals' such as PLOS and MDPI , and working paper sites like bioarxiv and physics arxiv (which are basically non-peer reviewed)
'forums and blogs' such as this one , and many academic and other blogs
------------------------
There is almost no way to aggregate all this information, and typically every contribution relies on many other often highly detailed or technical sources, and also many contributions are heavily biased by the views of whoever wrote them, often ignore competing views, and the contributors vary in both their expertise and fields of interest.
One might almost need an AI algorithm to sort out this research, and also it would have to have 'multiple solutions' or 'equilibria' for various audiences---a research communication component, and a public communication component. This is analogous to a Supreme Court case which has both 'deliberations' mostly for the people involved in the case (plaintiffs, defendents, court justices) and also a 'final judgement' which is for the general public.
---------------
There are researchers who are or seem to be considering such a conception, and it mostly involves ideas from statistical mechanics, biology, and theory of computation. Basically one is trying to sort the wheat from the chaff, while recognizing at the same time that you can't have wheat without chaff (or in terms of Shannon's information theory you need some noise to get a signal through, or in biology you need both random mutation and natural selection , or in democracy you need a variety of opinions, and in economics a diversity of occupations.)
In one of the original threads on this forum, there was even some disagreement on how to define science.