Placing (epistemic) inclusivity and diversity against research standards is an interesting framing. I agree that standards seem easier to apply to logical analysis in STEM, but I think that the replicability crises in many soft-science fields show that this is harder than it looks. In this case, I agree that impact focused bibliometrics has moved the equilibrium away from just relying on honest researchers to publish reliable work towards editorial requirements that try to make sure researchers can only publish reliable work. Following the replication crises I’m inclined to think this is a good response, but it might be that some reforms do impose standards that don’t allow room for diverse research approaches (preregistrations for exploratory research has been one point of discussion).
I can’t really comment much on quality control in the humanities, as that’s well outside my research experience. But I do think that it’s quite common for the founders of a field to impose their standards on the work that follows theirs. I’m not confident that results from bibliometrics though, as founder-effects occur in many other systems as well.