Well,
The thing about "the collapse of peer review" (or the rise of predatory journals) is that it involves something like the collapse of the "scientific community". For a device like peer review to work, you need to have a pool of individuals who are trustworthy - who care more about the truth more than they care about one or another sources of immediate benefit.<p>The institution of tenure is intended to facilitate this - the ideal is a professor receives tenure and then can pursue their ideals rather than constantly looking over their shoulder wondering if they are going to survive.<p>Of course, tenure is subject to abuse and tenure isn't the only way to get a pool of people who are significantly interested in "what is true" rather than "will this benefit me". But elimination of tenure and the reworking of the university on a "neo-liberal" basis of pay-for-immediate-performance does seems to be gradually destroying the community part of the scientific community (if a given authority just wants money, why shouldn't any of their peer reviews be up for the highest bid or why should they endorse predatory journal or etc). That's not as much of a problem with technical fields where it's known that truth can be nearly mechanically verified (math is approaching that level but sociology seems unlikely to get there soon, for example).<p>We may get to a point where our society has immense technical know-how but has abandoned science as such. Goes along with "post-truth" I suppose.