[BeetleB]

> It’s my belief that most people just want their research to be seen and engaged with by their peers (it is, of course, the fundamental purpose of producing a paper). Universities however want prestige, and enforce the policy “publish or perish”.

The two are one and the same. What you call "Universities" is simply "professors at the universities". Department policies for tenure are set by a bunch of professors. The dean of the college is always a professor. There's no "us" vs "them".

[setr]

Sure there is. Developers have very different goals and responsibilities than their managers (regardless of whether they were once developers themselves).

The dean serves a different master than the researching/teaching professor. It would be absurd to assume their incentives and goals are always the same, or even aligned.

[BeetleB]

The difference is that managers ultimately have to answer to a different type of crowd (consumers, shareholders, whatever). External pressures play a role. At universities, it is professors all the way. The people who are on NSF grant committees are professors. Journal editors are research professors.

There is no external pressure on these people. NSF grantors don't value Nature publications because they have to answer to the public. They value it because they value it.

If a professor becomes a dean or head of NSF, and they decide to make changes to what is considered prestigious, the only opposition they'll get is from their peers.