A wide variety of quasi-scientific journals are available, and the mainstream scientific journals also publish letters that might cover topics not yet ready for prime time. For the mainstream journals of science, and of philosophy, the author should have his credentials in order or somehow get someone with creds to co-author. If someone lacks creds he also lacks the right to be heard by the scientific or philosophic community—he lacks standing.
Do tell. So, is it your belief standing is more important than potential breakthroughs - from whatever source? The amateur or lay types are at the mercy of the system™, and can only make contributions at the pleasure of the system™? The system then can, if it chooses, cherry pick what is good science? Do you see any potential for abuse here?