You are confusing science with the social process of science and how it is applied in academia.
Science is a way to get to the truth. It has no concept of money or grant makers, or academic institutions.
The social process of science is more complicated and yes, academia has developed some perverse incentives to keep the publishing mill running, regardless of scientific insights.
But that has nothing to do with the article. I'd recommend that you actually go and read the relativity of wrong, it's not that long and most of it is just as accurate today as it was then.
Yes, science and academia are not the same, but this distinction is largely meaningless precisely because as you yourself say "the social process of science is more complicated" as in science does not happen in a vacuum. Science is largely by product of academia, if you will.
While the theoretical scientific method itself may be a way to get to actual truth, the published science - knowledge that will be known, preserved and built upon - is a result of academic process, not some ultimate truth-seeking. In a practical sense science is the social process of science even if there is innate ontological difference.
Science is a way to get to the truth. It has no concept of money or grant makers, or academic institutions.
The social process of science is more complicated and yes, academia has developed some perverse incentives to keep the publishing mill running, regardless of scientific insights.
But that has nothing to do with the article. I'd recommend that you actually go and read the relativity of wrong, it's not that long and most of it is just as accurate today as it was then.