Could you try and make that argument without the term "financially viable"? We're talking about science here. Capitalism is a tiny thing that really isn't required to rule everything, and particularly in this case I don't think it has any authority based on which to implement that "check".

If I just leave that out you seem to imply science publications should be selected by whether enough people care about, or whether they are boring or not. Both (especially the latter) are rather bad measuring sticks for the quality and importance of research.

Adding "financially viable" to "less boring" produces "EXCITING!", adding it to "enough people care" yields "POPULAR!". These are definitely not forces that should be pulling scientific research.

Not saying there shouldn't be checks. Just that market forces are probably too stupid for it.