Let us hope, that biology and biochemistry will move in that direction as well! Many things you mentioned are not applicable yet, e.g. are the life sciences still in the tight grip of big journals, and although there is bioRxiv, it is frowned upon by many influencial people in the field.
And might I add something to the "Recognition"-list: Education! The ability to teach and explain should be an actual criterium for some kind of recognition and reward, as this ability is lacking in many places. Researchers, lass able in this respect, should aspire this as much as they aspire papers and findings, but without reward, it is often disregarded.
In my university, we have special (monetary) prizes for people investing their time in education. This is something I found particularly great, as usually lecturers and professors are paid to teach but evaluated through their research.
It would be even better if the evaluation was done through looking at their quality in education. Money is a nice incentive, but all too often I witness that people with poor teaching skills are hired because of their better scientific output. But at least at a university, both is important!
Yeah, this is not very common, unfortunately :(