Maybe it's an unpopular opinion, and biased by fields I've worked in as a grad, but I think you really just can't validate a particular paper without a background in the field. You need lots of context: recent works of that university department, credability/background of the last author post doc/professor, state of the art and cornerstone works in that field.
You could probably gain an entry level background (except for highly mathematical or medical things) by spending 5-10 hours a week for a few months reading various papers/online discussions. Assuming you have access to those forums. You should know thats the lower bound amount of literature reading full-time students have to do to keep up with their own field.
Nobody keeps reading full time, that would not only be insane it would also be conterproductive since it’s time not spend actually doing something or writing papers. In most place it’s not necessary to know all the recent papers, and if a really important one is missing as a reference, a reviewer will note it in the comments.
I worded that poorly. I meant full-time students (as in they're not just reading about something out of curiosity while sitting on the toilet) that read literature as a part of their job.
You could probably gain an entry level background (except for highly mathematical or medical things) by spending 5-10 hours a week for a few months reading various papers/online discussions. Assuming you have access to those forums. You should know thats the lower bound amount of literature reading full-time students have to do to keep up with their own field.