[btrettel]

> they’ll be forced to evaluate the paper on its intrinsic merits rather than the reputation of its author

Similarly, many academics won't evaluate published papers on their own merits and instead focus heavily on proxies like publication venue. Conference papers are unfairly viewed with suspicion compared against journal articles (in my field at least), and certain venues are viewed as superior in general to the point where some "don't count".

These academics instead outsource the evaluation to a few reviewers, who often don't know what they're doing. Peer review does not appear to be as reliable as it is treated. I view peer review as closer to a lottery. And the "best" journals still frequently publish nonsense. It tends to be more pretentious nonsense in my field, though.

I don't care too much about signaling the quality of my work and instead would rather publish in more specialized journals and conferences where I can reach the people I want to reach and get better feedback. I recall at a presentation on getting a faculty job someone said that they won't count any publications in journals with names they don't recognize. Both quality specialized journals and bad journals are included in that set. Add on top of that the common view that conference papers also "don't count" and I think the incentives here are bad.