Honestly, it sounds like a good idea but would be unlikely to work. Hiring and tenure decisions are mostly based on publications and grant funding (for tenure). There's too much of a vested interest in getting as many papers published as possible, and even with the current respected journals, there have been terrible problems with fake peer review.
Bottom line: when you submit a paper for consideration, they ask you to give them the names of a few potential reviewers. People have given fake names as a way of cheating. The problem would likely get worse with self-publishing as a volunteer operation.
For example, see
this editorial in
Nature.
Research, like education, has become a field driven by industrial metrics that create incentives to do the wrong thing. Education has an obsession with test scores. Research has an obsession with "journal impact factors," number of citations per paper, and "altmetric" scores.
On the one hand, it's nice to know how many citations my papers have. On the other hand, there is way, way too much focus on numbers over content. As an example is people who cite their friends' work and vice versa. Like education, which it's a part of, it's a mess.
