Candidly, this is potentially a serious problem. Journals these days specifically deny that the referee is responsible for certifying "correctness", saying that it is the author's responsibility, etc.
The real point is that unless/until a result is in some way controversial, scandalous, "important", no one cares at all. As in "whatever".
Needing citations to more prestigious journals is safer in that the results had some other cachet, some claim-to-fame, so were probably doubted/vetted by people more than papers appearing in even the most solid "second" journals. In the latter, or "in life", innocuous things are left alone... and/but if an innocuous thing proves to have some scandalous outcome (your paper?), it will be revisited.
Oop, then no amount of prior passive vetting would be sufficient...?
Or "there are no rules". Being persuasive, solid, is obviously the issue. Published papers are often wrong, and most often that is irrelevant to everything else in the world.