The article makes at lest one important point. There are only two incentives for a scientist: publications and grant money. Getting published fast reduces quality of research. Also, the focus on publications hinders other research outcomes like publicly available data or software.
Industry or start-ups may not make full use of publications that attack the same problem over and over again but they surely can improve with a new data or newly implemented algorithms.
[EDIT] Publicly available data and software make replicability more realistic. Currently lack of details in publications make it almost impossible.
If only there was some way to influence NIH and NSF grant requirements ...
There are only two incentives for a scientist: publications and grant money.
I disagree. There are three incentives: first, getting a permanent job, second getting grant money, and third, doing good work. The two former are unfortunately sometimes in opposition to the third.
NIH are among the proponents of Open access so they should be one of the easier organisations to convince. I believe all articles resulting from NIH sponsored research must now be published in Open access papers.
Industry or start-ups may not make full use of publications that attack the same problem over and over again but they surely can improve with a new data or newly implemented algorithms.
[EDIT] Publicly available data and software make replicability more realistic. Currently lack of details in publications make it almost impossible.
If only there was some way to influence NIH and NSF grant requirements ...