I don't disagree that having comprehensible papers is useful. There is undoubtedly value in having well written, easy to understand documents that make it easier for third parties to validate the work presented.

The thing is, that is a "nice to have", not a condition to make science.

If people believe that such things are useful, then the appropriate response is to reproduce, simplify and otherwise make the proofs provided into more easily digestible pieces.

The scientific process is fundamentally indifferent to whatever shibollets and cultural hangups that its presumed participants may have. An alien with fundamentally different norms from us, who experiments to determine the boiling temperature of water is doing science just as much as a human, even if he never submits a paper to a journal.

The issue you're having is that you're under the mistaken belief that the scientific process is the "community" and "norms" that happen to have developed over the past few centuries by this "scientific" priesthood.

It is not. It has never been. It will never be.

This "scientific" priesthood has simply used their power and reputation to enforce their own self-aggrandizing norms, much like the religious priesthood they replaced. They should not be taken seriously, and to go along with these norms when they are unnecessary is frankly ridiculous and shameful for anyone who actually prizes results.

I would urge you to reconsider your stance, and in particular to put deep thought into why you believe these norms are so important.