yes, I agree with that, but if it was a recognised system then journals could have 'fast track' PhD processes

A PhD by publication has its place, but I think it would be wrong to take this route for all PhDs. Some PhDs don't produce as much publishable material as others, or are not necessarily 'covered' by as many high impact journals as others. Impact factors can change, so publishing one year will produce a different result than another year even though the desirability of articles for a particular journal remain the same. I also think it would be wrong to start grading PhDs too. When doing a PhD, you business is learning the business of research - often getting to grips with extremely complex equipment/theories. They're all so different anyway.
A wide examiner panel bound by a rigid assessment and evaluation framework (standardised for broadly related subject areas) would be the best way forward. Examination of PhDs will never be perfect, very much like the peer review process.

My PhD requires all candidates to complete a Graduate Certificate of Research concurrently with the PhD. Seems annoying but actually it is a way of enforcing certain milestones are met quite swiftly-at least in draft form. At one of the recent seminars that I had to attend, given by an emeritus professor in data management (or something similar) the topic of PhDs by publication was brought up. Her position was that these are really hard to achieve, require several papers that represent many years worth of work and she had only met one person who had ever received one. That was some expert in forensics (in some specialty or other) who had been publishing expert papers in his field for around 18 years or more. Her contention was that it was actually easier to get a PhD by writing a thesis than it was to achieve the PhD by publication.

But it is also a catch 22 situation in that- it is hard to get papers published without a university affilliation. People want to know who you are and what your scholarly or professional history is. Likewise the process and the type of writing involved in publishing in professional journals and academic journals is also a little different. You know what its like-once upon a time, reading an ethusiastic and passionate piece by a practitioner in a professional or popularist journal was great. Now after having gone through (even for a short time or so) the mentoring/supervisor/publishing mill) you know that unless the data is good and the methodology is rigorous and the analysis is clear, you don't quite buy what the person is saying, no matter how persuasive the language or passionate the stance. That is what a PhD does for you. (Hope this makes sense-am on to my second glass of wine after a long break from any-due to work, study and illness).

The degree should definitely be abolished, at least in all of the Humanities/Liberal Arts areas. No real important research that affects peoples' lives is done in this branch of higher education. It's all just intellectual masturbation really. I have been thinking of burning my PhD/doctorate degree. It is in music from University of Southern California. At one time it was one of the premiere music schools in the country. As soon as the outrageous, "overstuffed- shirt" professors and administrators realized the only way to sustain their cushy lifestyles and overbloated salaries was to sell the degree to almost anyone who paid for it ( especially foreign students) in the late 1990's and 2000's, henceforth, it basically became a worthless piece of garbage: completely devalued, almost like the German Mark after the First World War.