True, but there are multiple factors involved, including just plain old ego. Like other areas in society celebrity has become part of science. Discovering something new or ‘cool’ makes one a rock star of sorts in science. The highest profile journals don’t decide what to publish just on the basis of whether or not the science is good. They give heavy consideration to the ‘coolness’ factor of the research. If it’s not dramatic, they don’t want it. That is bad policy as it leads to overstatement and over-interpretation of data.
Ego also influences the peer review process. The reviewers protect the inquiry status quo, upon which their careers and reputations were built, by holding work that challenges their own views to a much higher standard. Research that agrees with what you already think must be right... right? So it gets published. Published science must be right... right? Behold the laminar flow of the Normal Science mainstream (per Hacking), otherwise known as a circle jerk.
If celebrity made them broke, they wouldn’t pursue it. After sex, it’s all about the money.