This issue has been talked about quite a bit over the past few years and to me it comes down fundamentally to incentives academics have to keep churning papers because that's what they get measured on. Of course the good thing about that is that you can change the incentives, just as how science funding changed significantly post WW2, but I'm afraid just like in many problematic areas of society nowadays there is a large group of people who benefit from this situation and are hence hostile to any sort of change. As such if change does come I think it will have to be top down rather than bottom up.

For an interesting perspective the physicist Murray Gell-Mann spoke on similar issues in a 1997 interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQGjsWiA_mM