That's interesting, because I've also seen the opposite problem in high impact journals, as in the Arsenic-based-life paper published in Science last year. The journal was keen to get a big dramatic story, and must have let it in with fairly minor peer review. Then it got roundly criticised after publication.

I hate the way we have to 'sell' research to compete for funding and prestigious publications. But my impression is that most researchers regard this as a necessary evil, not as their primary purpose. Maybe I've been lucky in my academic experiences (two UK universities, biology), but I met a lot of people who are still genuinely interested in the science. They play the salesman game, of course, because they have to, but they help their PhD students and postdocs, try to judge research from other groups objectively, and care about intellectual honesty. Some of the best are the emeritus professors, the ones who simply carried on researching instead of retiring.