I understand where you come from.

I think these observations on who financed the research are very field-dependent too. Any big pharma-related research warrants a high amount of scrutiny and skepticism. In other fields, it really depends on the financial incentives. I can say for a fact that I never got pressured to publish in one direction or the other. I might have better chances at funding if I publish on the latest hot topic (quantum computation, machine learning, etc), but once I have secured funding, I can publish on any topic I want with any results I observe. But that's probably a perk of doing fundamental physics kind of stuff. Potential monetization is usually decades down the road.

I would prefer more recognition were possible in terms of publishing negative results (when a piece of research does not confirm your initial assumptions and ends up being a methodological contribution more than anything else) whereas positive results are usually more likely to get you into high-impact journals.

There is much to be said about the flaws of peer-review, for-profit journals, scientific fraud, etc... but that's a topic for another time ;)