In what follows I won't define 'science'--but I will use the term in a very wide sense.
1. Ever since Kuhn, all forms of inquiry have been organized in a recognizable sociological and legitimating template that we can call "the trappings of science" (journal articles, learned societies, peer review, PhDs, citation practices, etc). Unfortunately, because of science's authority [I call this Newton's challenge], this means that all kinds of dubious forms of inquiry attempt to sneak in as science under radar screen(s).
2. Given the considerable overlap between philosophy and theology, philosophy will be an attractive discipline for folk interested in pursuing religion in scientific fashion.
3. A lot of political projects want to gain the legitimacy of science. So, the temptation to infiltrate disciplines and fields will be ever-present. Moreover, these disciplines/fields will often welcome the extra attention (and increased citations, larger community, financial support, etc)! The political projects will tempt to influence the shape of various scientific discipline. (This can be benign or not; I call this the Socratic Problem.)
4. As anybody who has friends/relatives in the natural sciences knows, philosophy doesn't really run its journals very professionally. We rely on a relatively small pool of overworked and stretched editors.
5. As the world moves toward ever more "objective" metrics to evaluate (promote/hire/give grants to, etc) academics, the importance of journals will increase and the system will be overloaded.