Every since I got my own lab, I've been skipping "traditional" publication, for these reasons and more. I've had great success and satisfaction sharing my research via "DIY" publishing:
Advancing my field is my life's mission, and disseminating my research is too important to outsource.
Believe it or not, Twitter has been crucial to the process. It's not great for nuanced discussion, but it's AMAZING for advertising the existence of technical information. For example:
I hate publishers as much as the next guy, but playing the twitter high-school popularity game is the last thing I want to do with my time, and IMO it's leading to the click-baitification of research in AI. This year there was even an instance of literal ASTs being hailed by deep learning hoards as some amazing new idea.
If science gets attention according to its level of twitter amplification, then scientific publishing is going to start looking a lot like journalism. That's already happening. Ask journalists how their search for truth is going.
As opposed to the traditional publishing high-school popularity game? I'm partially joking, but traditional publishing is very much a popularity contest. You're free to ignore this, but I don't recommend it.
My personal experience (twelve years of traditional publishing followed by five years of DIY publishing) is that I spend substantially less of my time on publishing/dissemination, have higher impact, and produce higher quality work. You should give it a try!
That's a good example! I never bothered soliciting formal peer review for that article, but many of the principles we simulated there have since been demonstrated:
If science gets attention according to its level of twitter amplification, then scientific publishing is going to start looking a lot like journalism. That's already happening. Ask journalists how their search for truth is going.