Every argument I have seen for going "beyond" the journal article suffers from the same glaring flaw, namely the beyond takes a great deal more time and skill than simply writing stuff down. As such it robs the research, to pay for communication, which is a bad deal. This case is extreme in that regard. It is also strange in that it seems to assume that science is primarily computational, rather than rational.
Mind you I have my own candidate for going beyond the article -- the issue tree diagram. It presents the same set of atomic ideas, while also showing how these fit together. But the difference in the time and skill required, between the article and the issue tree, is like the difference between a crude sketch and an engineering drawing. Journal articles do not need that precision.
Writing is a 6000 year old technology, so it is very simple. Even better (or worse), it is based on speaking, which is as old as humanness itself. It is unlikely that a viable alternative exists or can be found.
David