The second paragraph literally says "I'm a scientist". Scientists do things other than pipette liquids and stain slides all day. They also get to think about the meta details of their field and try to solve them, which it sounds like what this author is after.
I think a lot of proof is given in the article about the claims that you suggest are "false generalizations". What "niche" field do you think the author works in, where these issues with publishing only apply there and no where else? More importantly, in what scientific fields is the publishing system actually working? Those would be effective counter-examples, and I'd genuinely be interested in learning why it works for those fields.
The whole "easy path" argument you're making is totally incomprehisible. Just say whatever it is that you're trying to say. Unless you're saying that scientists should just "care more", and their problems will be solved.
I think a lot of proof is given in the article about the claims that you suggest are "false generalizations". What "niche" field do you think the author works in, where these issues with publishing only apply there and no where else? More importantly, in what scientific fields is the publishing system actually working? Those would be effective counter-examples, and I'd genuinely be interested in learning why it works for those fields.
The whole "easy path" argument you're making is totally incomprehisible. Just say whatever it is that you're trying to say. Unless you're saying that scientists should just "care more", and their problems will be solved.