
The thing is you need to read the whole article in order to determine it's worth. Reading a scholarly work takes tremendous time and effort. It usually takes me more than an hour to have a critical reading of an article.
What is most frustrating about journals is the possibility that it's content will prove useless in the end. To think you spent all that reading for nothing?!? Perhaps that is the reason why including abstracts became a necessary requirement for all submitted articles. It gives the reader a glimpse of the hole they want to jump into.

Researchers have to be wary of abstracts as well. Authors can make the soundest abstracts and yet fail to deliver the content. I believe that it would be better if researchers glance at the sub headings of an article and read 1-3 sentences each heading.
This may not be a fool proof way of reading the most worthy journals but it will definitely trim the competition down. At least it's better than wasting time reading an entire article which in the end will not prove useful. Editors should come up with a policy requiring authors to formulate descriptive headings. This way readers will have a better chance of reading articles that may truly be useful to them.
_________________________________
Illustrations Cited:
Coloniarmanormotel.com
http://www.colonialmanormotel.com/Default.asp?ID=1183
About.com: Political Humor
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/k/1/political_abyss.jpg