I think the article is talking about a bigger issue, which is expanding our idea of a "research contribution" to include software. The current attitude essenti

I think the article is talking about a bigger issue, which is expanding our idea of a "research contribution" to include software. The current attitude essentially considers software to be equipment for getting to a scientific result. I think that if we started thinking about research software as a research contribution in itself, it would be a good way to accomplish what you talk about, e.g. by making software (and data) something that is published and cited, rather than attached as a supplement to every publication.