[lewis500]

The difference is in the MO for publishing in a given field...not the conscious venue selection so much. From what I know, computer scientists have a high publication rate, rank conference publications as pretty important and sometimes write papers that are about something they built.

Compare this to economists. For economists, it's all about hitting a home run a couple times...publishing a few career-making papers in the best possible journals. Economists will publish only a couple times per year, and their papers are sometimes very long. The review process is crazy: the time between first draft of the paper and final publication can be like five years.

I think what determines this is the difficulty of ascertaining the quality of a piece of work. In CS or math or math physics, I think anyone in a certain subfield is capable of ascertaining how good a paper is. It doesn't need to be extremely long or flashy, and chances are it will make an incremental improvement. By contrast, let's say an economist publishes a paper called "do red light cameras encourage speeding?" The intended audience (economists) doesn't really know anything about red light cameras or driver behavior. They don't have the time to do all the data analyses themselves, and until recently would never even have access to the data. So they look for a bunch of other markers of quality: writing style, citations, length, venue, etc.