A thought experiment here, but given that I know nothing of economics I'll need you guys to tell me the restusts, but how about this:
Replace the gold standard with backing the money of the world economy by peered reviewed scientific papers published that year, scientific papers require effort to make and thus will be rare, but on the upside it means every country has an equal footing on getting up the ladder and wealthy countries already have large scientific organisations so that that won't destabilise the world economy. Finally and more importantly science will be now really well funded.
So what is the implications and ramifications of this? Any thoughts?

i think perhps you a little out of date.
i dont think any country uses the gold standard today. A country having gold reserves is not the same thing.
aside from that small detail, i dont see how any of the rest of it would work. what intrinsic value can a peice of paper have, especially if everyone has access to the knowledge it contains

I'm thinking more along the lines of each paper published is worth *shrug* $1000 for completeling the work not for the content of the paper...

Put government backed groups in charge of the workings of science. Sounds awesome.

The US congress has Paul "evolution and embryology are lies straight from the pit of hell" Broun as head of the science committee. You think if his job actually becomes something important to the economy you wont just see a mass expropriation of academia's peer review process and a slew of certified (or certifiable) creationists taking their place?

Science is not democracy, Science is not [directly] economics. Scientific thinking is vital for the survival of both but must ultimately be independant.