Principles of academic freedom usually leave it up to the individual researcher to decide what to study (within ethical limits). They may certainly be judged (for promotion, tenure, raises, etc) based on whether their research is successful, but there's no "prior restraint" as it were. So an institution usually won't require this sort of pre-review. It is certainly wise for the researcher to seek advice regarding the feasibility of their planned study, but if they don't think it's worthwhile, or want to go ahead even if the reviewers think it's a bad idea, that is their prerogative (and their time wasted if it fails).
On the other hand, if they need money to do their work, there are certainly elaborate peer review processes for grant proposals. It's considered fine for a researcher to risk wasting their own time with a poorly planned study, but not for them to risk someone else's money.
For studies with possible ethical concerns (e.g. human or animal subjects), there will be an ethics review required before the work begins. This will mainly be aimed at whether the techniques are ethical instead of whether the overall study is likely to succeed, but one consideration may be whether the study's benefits outweigh potential risks to the subjects.