I like the ideas for novel ways of interacting with research you mentioned here. It's all very compelling from a user perspective, but maybe even more so is the potential for organic growth beyond what we might imagine currently. It could be something that lowers the barrier to entry for "non experts" to learn and engage, and maybe even to contribute to experiments and validation but that won't be the case for most experiments. Equipment and materials are expensive in many fields of research. Either way, making research more accessible, and open to both interaction and discussion is a great way to build trust.
As for attracting research to Nostr, I'm ambivalent about zaps as an incentive. The problem is that it's an incentive that may or may not align with the vision of making research more open and accessible and, more importantly, building trust. Contrary to some narratives out there, I know plenty of people that are die-hard scientists with a genuine curiosity about the world. Money is just another necessary tool to keep the research going, and they honestly couldn't care less about it. That said, the current paradigm of "publish or perish" is not so different from zapping in that it, too, is just an incentive that may or may not align with good science.
The same ambivalence I have about zaps to attract content applies to the peer review process. Currently peer review is unpaid work, which is actually criminal, but introducing zaps from anyone to anyone for peer review can also have a corrupting effect. I honestly don't have a good solution that applies universally, and I'm not sure there is one, but good solutions may evolve organically depending on unique sets of conditions.