Nowadays there are a myriad of journals in all sorts of topics, some more respected than others. To perform and publish research at such a level requires not only a number of qualifications but also a specific set of methods. How did we come to the standards of today, is there such a thing as "history of research methods and standards?"
Broadly this is historiography, but I'd like to correct a couple of misconceptions. A book I'd recommend is (ed.) Bentley, M., Companion to Historigraphy, (London, 1997).
requires qualifications
Not in history. If you produce research, whether a book or article, which is of a sufficient standard to pass the anonymous review process then your research will be published. You do not need a degree to do so. An undergraduate student I tutored is preparing his dissertation for publication as an article, at the recommendation of his markers, and there was a prominent Anglo-Saxon scholar in the twentieth-century who possessed an M.D. rather than a Ph.D., as a couple of examples.
some more respected than others
Anyone can set up a journal, especially in the digital age, and certain journals have earned their reputation because they rigorously enforce their editorial process. The standards are, generally, that the articles have been subject to anonymous review by a specialist in the field and judged worthy of publication, including advice and feedback which must be implemented before publication.
A specific set of methods
Research methods are much more fluid than you seem to imagine, they very wildly from historian to historian, and the process of peer review (which forms a large part of a journal's functions) is essential to understanding and publicising the veracity of claims and shaping the direction of a field within history.